User talk:Abu ali/Archive

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 [1]. 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" [2]. Now, I took a look at the deletion log of article submitted on January 8 together with mine [3]. 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". [[4]]. 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 occurred 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)

Fair Use

Just to let you know, I have no opinion on the dispute on ANI, and I HATE the policy on Fair Use. In fact, I am sorry I even mentioned it, since I am so opposed to the policy. I'm afraid I am turning into a Wikipedian. :-( Jeffpw 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you mentioned it too. If Naji al-Ali was alive today, I believe that he would have approved of the use of his drawing. Abu ali 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From Adam Keller

The undeletion process seems to be proceeding well, thanks again for all the help. (Still, it is clear that I would have done better to be bit less honest and not write the page in my own name...). Anyway, I will be in Holland between tommorow (Feb. 1) and Feb.16, and might not go into Wikipedia every day. If there is a reason for you to contact me you can send an email to info@gush-shalom.org and write in the subject line in capitals "FOR ADAM" (so that we could easily distinguish it from spam). Anyway, I would like to have your email address, in case there is a need to communicate (on this or other issues) with more privacy than this page offers.Adam Keller 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to use the [this user link] at the left of this page. Have a good holiday. And enjoy a good break from Wikipedia! Abu ali 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Very few admins have the ability to check IPs. I'm not one of them. But I have asked him, and it seems probable from his refusal to respond as well as the nature of that edit that they are the same users. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He has responded on his page that he is not MouseWarrior. As per WP:AGF, that settles it. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abu ali 08:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

For some reason I think you speak Arabic. I might be mistaken. Anyway, if you do, take a look here: w:ar:نقاش:العدوان الإسرائيلي على لبنان 2006#Misleading use of resources - إستعمال المصادر بصورة مضللة. I admit I lost my temper there. POV is one thing, but misleading people about the official statements of international bodies is another. I'd be grateful if you could do something about it. drork 10:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I have a little time. My own POV, for what is worth, is that these international bodies should be exposed for what they are rather than legitimized by attempting to beautify their actions. Abu ali 11:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the point there. They called the article "The Israeli agression on Lebanon". I don't subscribe to this view, but so be it. What made me lose my temper is a paragraph trying to justify the use of the term "agression" by citing the Council of Europe and G8 statements. In fact, these statements were totally misinterpreted, and I suspect this was done intentionally - people see a statement backed with a source, the chances that they will actually check the sources are slim. I tried to correct the misleading interpretation and to introduce a citation from the Security Council resulution 1701 suggesting that the first move was done by Hezbollah (my intention was to show that by no mean is there consensus about the term "agression"), but my edits were reverted. drork 12:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We disagree with our characterisation of Israel's actions in Lebanon. But we would agree about the characterisation of the UN and council of Europe which effectively backed Israel's actions and refused to call for a cease fire till 11 August. If these bodies had called for an immediate cease fire, then many Arab and Israeli victims of the war would still be alive today. Abu ali 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, again that's not the point. We could talk about the way this crisis was handled, but that's another story. The point it, you cannot say the Council of Europe called the Israeli actions "agression" while in fact this word was never used by any representative of the Council. Quite the contrary in fact, as you mentioned above. What happened in the Arabic Wikipedia is that they took an article which cited the source and interpreted it quite freely and in a misleading way, and brought it as a proof that the COE saw the Israeli actions as "agression". Furthermore, they rejected a citation from the Security Council resolution that indicates that the international community didn't adopt the view of Israeli "agression". You must agree that you cannot put words into people's mouthes. It is regretable that this is the case in the Arabic Wikipedia. drork 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

It's nice of you to say that, thank you. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 occurred 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 occurred 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)

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)

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 [5] [6] . 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 [7] 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)

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)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to User:Abu_ali, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

i'm afraid you did not only refuse to remove your obvious connction of an alleged sexual offender from the "Zionism" title, but you made sure that my username stay after it was removed by an admin - your activity has shown that you have the intention of using this platform in a destructive manner even after being given fair warning - this is your third warning. Jaakobou 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir, your warnings are totally inapropriate. My alledged offence in your eyes is to have a link to the prezident of the state of Israel on my user page. If you do not like the fact that Katzav is prezident of the State of Israel, then please direct your complaints to those that elected him. Abu ali 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The state of my approval or disapproval (check yes next to disapproval) of Katzav is non-related to the subject which is "defamation on zionism". Mr. Katzav is not even a spec on the history of zionism but you made him your primary (and only) link - not to mention your later abuse of my username which showed lack of good faith (which you claim i mis-attacked you over??). i suggest, same as before, that you discard this counter-productive use of wikipedia. Jaakobou 08:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Moshe Kazav was elected president of the state of Israel not by me but by the Knesset. The president has few powers but his main function is to serve as a symbol of the state. I had other Israeli leaders on the list but they were deleted by User:MacGyverMagic who was responding to your complain about me on WP:AIN. Thank you for your kind suggestion regarding what I should have on my userpage. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. Abu ali 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Abu, you don't have to keep those warnings on your talk page. There's no consensus about that, and one school of thought is that if you remove them, that is an acknowledgment that you've read them. Seems kinda nutsy for you to get a warning, anyway, for a content dispute (and for what it's worth, I'm Jewish and don't find your userpage offensive). Jeffpw 08:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will keep them as they do illustrate the agressive tactics used by certain editors on Wikipedia. I am glad that you don't find my userpage offensive. (Although it is not as well informative and well thought out as yours!) Maybe one day I will have time to add some more information, (assuming Jaakobou and his friends don't succeed in getting me banned). Abu ali 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, i have no prejudices towards you, however, you've made a stance which is aggressive towards me by presenting liableous materials and it would seem that it's not a "one time" situation^[8][9] but an actual agenda^{[10][11][12][13] and my personal favourite: [14]}. i request you use this website for promoting the important topics which will create a better future for the people you presumably care for. in a paraphrase on the words of golda meir: "peace will come when the arabs will love their children more than they hate us"... this was said after she mistakenly insisted war would not break because she believed that "arab grandmothers are sure to love their grandsons same as us"... i respectfully request that you will not misguidedly associate an alleged sex offender with the zionist enterprise (regardless of your perception on that enterprise)- feel free to associate it with the king david bombing... with the lechi and the hagana and the irgun ... although it would be much more generous of you to connect it also with the drop of child mortality for arabs and with many other projects as well. your connection (+persistant) of it to moshe katzav seems to promote the thought that your desire/conception is to say/that zionism=evil and you wish to use anything you can as proof... i hope you will respect my request rather than have us in a continuous pickle... last note, this is not a zionist plot to bring you down *shrug* - i happen to feel that many of your edits have been fair (accusations against "israeli friends" and "zionist" apart).

Abu ali will never give up. I have learned to ignore his horrible edits. Let him waist his life trying to convey his POV on Wikipedia. Brilliance 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Comment from my user talk

Hi Abu, I simply moved the warnings from your user page to your talk page as I simply thought you would not want them there. With regards to advising User:Jaakobou on his talk page about giving final warnings, this was because he posted a comment on WP:AIV asking for help regarding your edits. The reason why I advised him was because 1)AIV should only be used to report users not get advice regarding them and 2)users should only be reported once they have been given a final warning. I wasn't in anyway implying that I thought your edits were vandalism, I was simply advising on the appropriate course of action to take with regards to reporting users. Regards RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing other users

Whether Jaakobou is zionist is not important. Listing it on your userpage when he objects, however, is counterproductive and could be considered an attack when you use it to judge his Wikipedia edits. Please refrain from listing users by their political convictions. If people want to do that, they can do so on their own userpage. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic bias

You have recently made several comments ([15] [16] [17] [18]) implying or outright accusing other users of ethnic bias. In addition to the appearance of bias which jumping immediately to such accusations puts on your own actions, this is a grave breach of several Wikipedia policies (WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL). Please confine your comments to discussion of encyclopedia content and procedures rather than making ethnic/religious slurs against other editors. --CBD 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You misread my comments. My comments have nothing to do with ethnicity, and everything to do with political ideology (i.e. Zionism). Abu ali 16:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Whichever. Whether the dispute is ethnic, religious, political, or whatever is irrelevant... all are improper. --CBD 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism by country

the issue of israel being deleted from this section and being stubbed in racism is becoming an issue. I think the situation reflects poorly on wiki and who edits here. Content is being deleted despite valid refs, yet other section have different rules. most editors seem to turn a blind eye.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it reflects very accurately on Wikipedia. Israeli society is riven with racism, against Arabs, Mizrachi jews and foreign workers. But on Wikipedia there is no mention of this, and anyone who dares add any reference on this is branded as an anti-semite. Abu ali 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

have a read of what was written in racism on israel. it is a joke, and no one says anything, they dont even try to hide it.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. I like the bit about "critics of Israel echoing words that could come out of the mouth of Osama Bin Laden". This is WP NPOV at its finest. Abu ali 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I was responding to that comment while you were asking me to respond to it ... WilyD 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cquick work:-) Abu ali 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still in Holland until Friday and my acees to computers in general and ti Wikipeidia in particular is very limited by not wanting to put a burden on my hosts here. After Friday this week, Feb. 16, will be back at home in Israel and will try to get involved. Meanwhile, perhaps you can take a look at the Shmuel Yerushalmi article which my friends s informed me is under threat of deletion and prhaps might still be saved.Adam Keller 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

seen it before..

Hi, regarding Talk:Racism by country well, I´ve seen it more times that I can remember :-( As you may conclude from my userpage: pro-Israeli editors "outgun" anybody else here. (Another favorite is to try to delete biographys about people who are critical of Israel....they are for some reason "non-notable"....) Anyway, I think all the editors running around inserting the total garbage of Shmuel Katz is worse...I just have to take three steps back and laugh of the whole thing...

Don´t expect me to be on Wikipedia every day (or every week!) I am on wikipedia on-and-off....cannot be bothered with too much of the censorship....

very wise...

Anyway, can I ask you a favour? Could you put 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians on your watch-list? "Some" editor apparently do not like the the content of the book, and tries to remove it...

it's a good article about a good book, written by benny morris. and look what pressure was put on the poor guy to recant

Sorry I didn´t get to comment on this; just a note: I see you have referred to user:SlimVirgin as a "he": well, SlimVirgin is a "she" (like myself), (she had that on her user-page earlier).

on the internet you never know who is on the other end of the line. Most of the characters round here are male. Women generally have better things to do with their time.

Anyway, take care, and stay cooooooool, Regards, Huldra 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

you too... Abu ali 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the "list" from your user page

I believe the material on your user page is libelous and could be misconstrued by users who are not familiar with Wikipedia as a comprehensive list of Zionist leaders. It's odd how you pick and choose ones who have allegedly broke the law. I suggest you read WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism articles

I am now back in action (which does not mean I can devote all my time to Wikipedia, i have many other things to take care of). I took a look at the Racism and Racism by Country aricles. What is in them about Israel at the moment is reasonble, though it can be improved. I have some ideas but I think anything I change must be very clearly sourced, so I should not do anything hasty. (I have tangled with mr. Humus Sapiens before. Regardeless of the Israel specific issue, by the way, I think the two articels should be merged - either the Racism by Country merged into the general articles or the sections on specific countries in Racism should be removed to the other one and where both had a section on the same coutry these should be merged into one. Adam Keller 00:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. From my limited knowledge of your BIO I am amazed that you find time to even look in Wikipedia. Don't waste too much time here writing stuff which is liable to be deleted by right wingers. (The appear to have organized to finnish off the Shmuel Yerushalmi article. They can barely conceal their hatred for the guy [19]). These guys hate me. But this is nothing compared to their hatred of their fellow Israelis who are working for peace.) Regarding the Racism article, to my amazement an Israel section has been added to the article and has not yet been deleted. We will see how long it lasts.... Regards ابو علي 12:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

please visit

hope you can visit http://www.muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page. 7day 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I will. Shukran! ابو علي 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Inayat Bunglawala

You might be interested in this. Not sure if you're familiar with this issue, but the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain was recently accused of sending death threats to an American right-wing blog. The bloggers self-investigated and ultimately could not prove their allegations, but because of a single mention of the incident in Ynet, some users here feel that it warrants mention in this man's Wikipedia page, citing WP:RS. I contend that it runs afoul of WP:BLP, as it was an unsubstantiated allegation and extra care should be taken with such matters in pages of living people. Thoughts?

• My listing of this on the BLP noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (scroll to #158)
• A mediation case brought by others. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Inayat Bunglawala

Tarc 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar with the story. But I'll try to read the stuff if I get a minute. ابو علي 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

It's also worth reading Shahak's 1975 booklet "The Non-Jew in the Jewish State", if you can get hold of it. Some time I will try to scan it and put it online, but it will have to wait. --RolandR 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous?

Please look at my argument with Isarig on User talk:RolandR RolandR 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I was wondering if you know anything significant about her so that I could expand the criticism section on her article which as it stands is pretty slim. I saw her on Real Time with Bill Maher last night and just something about her pissed me off. In a way I almost prefer out and out rascists like Daniel Pipes because at least there direct and honest. You know where he's coming from, no matter how revolting his views may be. Whereas people like Ali and Irshad Manji play this extremely disengious game of claiming to speak for Islam and yet reputating it at the same time. I'm an atheist myself, but I try to remain careful that my secularism doesn't dovetail into a militaristic rascism.

The reason I mention this to you is that if you read the article on her you notice several passages of her gushing over what a great liberal democracy Israel is and how the palestinian disenfranchisement is mostly there own fault because of corrupt leaders like arafat. I think we need to more directly address these academic hacks because there real purpose is not enlightened discussion, but to give justification from everything to racial profiling, Guantonomo Bay, the Iraq war and the Israelie policy in the occupied territories. They are so called "House Muslims" who in the words of Tariq Ramadan "tell westerners what they want to hear. annoynmous 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help because I know very little about this right wing politician. Good luck ابو علي 20:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the heads up. But man, I am being stalked. Tewfik is now chasing me around to articles like Indigenous Peoples and elsewhere. Did you see my note in talk about the criteria to designate a group indigenous on Wikipedia? It is at, or linked to the Category:Indigenous Peoples page. Now, he's deleting my addition of Palestinians to all those pages even though I provided a source from the UN that designates Palestinians as indigenous. Abu Ali, what should I do? Where can I get help to stop his repeated deleting of this factual information? Help. Tiamut 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know you are right. And I do do that sometimes. But it sincerely irks me that editing articles related to the Middle East has to be such a battleground where the first casualty is the truth. I mean it's obvious Palestinians are indigenous to what is now Israel and the occupied territories. But with the amount of noise they make, you would think it was about as controversial as claiming that we never went to the moon. Thanks for keeping a cool head and putting things in perspective. Salamat. Tiamut 17:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As per your suggestion

Check out Tawfiq Ziad ... Let me know if you like it. Tiamut 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) and Abnaa el Balad. Feel free to add. I also thought you might want to look at this [20] considering the related debate at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel. I didn't take time off. But I made good use of it anyway. :) Tiamut 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff... Welcome back! ابو علي 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky

You seem to be on the edge of a 'revert war' with another editor. Please try to avoid that, and use the Talk pages instead. --Duncan 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

fair enough ابو علي 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sig

Please make your signature readable in Lating fonts as well, see Wikipedia:Signatures. Not all people have installed all possible world fonts. For example, on some computers I see your sig as ?????? . `'mikka 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have added in Lating fonts as well ابو علي (Abu Ali) 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we Arabs are nothing but trouble

I mean, how could we?
Express an opinion, that is.
Challenge authority
or bring in points of view underrepresented in the mainstream.
Be persistent,
and yet pen poems.
Write about our poets, writers,
music, and resistance.
How dare we pretend to know who we are
and express what we believe.

How dare we?
Write about what we know
What they've done to us
What they still do to us
And not apologize
for our pursuit of the truth

I don't know if you're Palestinian, Abu Ali. But I know that as a fellow human being, you share my pain at the state of the world. And I share yours. That's what moves me to write. My love for all people which begins with love for myself, then my neighbours, my people, and expands outward from there, everywhere. And if that's wrong, if passion is forbidden, and free-thought is dead, then let me die with them. For then, there is nothing in the world left to live for. Tiamut 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (Ahhh, the melodrama of our "Orient". Obviously passion and free-thought continue to live, and death is hopefully still way way off in the future. No need to worry, not planning anything crazy. Just thought I would clarify since once I read about this Palestinian guy at a University in Montreal that said he "was going to be famous one day", and the Zionist he was arguing with started shouting "So, you want to join Hamas?" assuming that he meant he wanted to become a suicide bomber. He was charged with making death threats, though the case was eventually dismissed after one of the witnesses admitted to writing both witness statements that were used against him and which in fact were identical. I know it sounds "conspiratorial", but it is actually true: [21][22][23] Tiamut 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Beautiful ya Tiamut. I have no words worthy of following your poetry. Thanks 1000 ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For keeping your cool when faced with unfounded accusations, continuing to edit and contribute content at an impressive level, and just generally being a really great guy Tiamut 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I have never got one before, and am far more accostomed to recieving final warnings. And thanks again for the poetry! You are right: it is the ability to feel pain, love and poetry which destinguishes the human race from machines, and those who are alive from those who are merely going through the motions. Look after youself... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)