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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |- |}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Part of a series on |
Hezbollah |
---|
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)
Your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
Well, thanks, glad you liked it! Regards, Huldra 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 true and a glimpse of their fears can be seen here [5] [6] . 7day 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is [ here] under "Wear it as a badge of honour"
Abu ali, I've responded on my talk page. Chovain( t| c) 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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! Culv e rin ? Talk 11:03, 16 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've left more comments on my talk page. Chovain( t| c) 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Culv e rin ? Talk 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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).
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 RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Cquick work:-) Abu ali 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
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....
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...
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).
Anyway, take care, and stay cooooooool, Regards, Huldra 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
hope you can visit http://www.muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page. 7day 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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?
Tarc 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Please look at my argument with Isarig on User talk:RolandR RolandR 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |- |}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Part of a series on |
Hezbollah |
---|
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)
Your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
Well, thanks, glad you liked it! Regards, Huldra 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 true and a glimpse of their fears can be seen here [5] [6] . 7day 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is [ here] under "Wear it as a badge of honour"
Abu ali, I've responded on my talk page. Chovain( t| c) 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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! Culv e rin ? Talk 11:03, 16 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've left more comments on my talk page. Chovain( t| c) 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Culv e rin ? Talk 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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).
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 RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Cquick work:-) Abu ali 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
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....
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...
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).
Anyway, take care, and stay cooooooool, Regards, Huldra 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
hope you can visit http://www.muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page. 7day 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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?
Tarc 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Please look at my argument with Isarig on User talk:RolandR RolandR 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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) |