User talk:Abu ali

You can find old stuff in User talk:Abu ali/Archive

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1][2] but an actual agenda^{[3][4][5][6] and my personal favourite: [7]}. 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

You have recently made several comments ([8] [9] [10] [11]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Yonatanh. Abu ALI your talk page isn't a soapbox to push your POV about "zionist leaders".WacoJacko 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly allowable to indicate likes, dislikes and political beliefs on your user page and to list articles you are interested in. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all it is is pretty much just the public display of a watch list. The above two bellyachers can be safely and freely ignored. Tarc 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the connotation of the list is obvious, I see nothing that is ipso facto forbidden. For example, there is nothing stopping anyone from having a list titled Articles on Arabs leaders that I watch on their page with entries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Yasser Arafat, Ahmed Yassin, Bashar Assad, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais etc.

Again, I created a counterexample that may be construed as having a specific intent; and I personally would not have either list on my userpage as it will tend to be divisive, so I would think that it is better to have neither, but as it stands now, outside of bringing this up to ArbCom, I do not think Abu Ali is in violation of any letter of the law. -- Avi 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well than why not just "Jewish Leaders", or "Israeli Leaders", why "Zionist Leaders"???WacoJacko 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these people self-identify as Zionists, so once again, Abu Ali is not in violation. I think anyone capable of intellectual honesty would understand the motive behind the wording, but once again, I do not think a claim could be made for a specific violation that warrants removal, other than if we were to start patrolling all userpages for potentially politically charged material. I am sure many people with similar genetic, but different religious, backgrounds to Abu Ali have the articles for a number of Arab extremists, fundamentalists, political figures, or other pundits on their watchlists, but do not place such a list on their user page. Sad, but true, that wvwn wikipedia is party to this ages old internecine strife; none of us are totally immune from it (myself included, obviously), it just would be prudent, mature, and responsible to try and control oneself to the point that at the very least a mutual respect and cordiality can prevail. -- Avi 13:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [12]). 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)[reply]

There's ample proof that Israel is a racist society (which doesn't mean you'll be allowed to get good sourced information into the article! Or, likely, even have any energy left to try and do so!).

Here's the US State Department. [13]

"The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs and they are subject to various forms of discrimination. ..."

"In March 2000, the High Court of Justice ruled that the Government's use of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to develop public land was discriminatory, as the JNF's by-laws prohibit sale or lease of land to non-Jews. ....... Relations between different religious groups often are strained, both between Jews and non-Jews, as well as among the different branches of Judaism."

"The Government does not provide Israeli Arabs ....... with the same quality of education, housing, employment opportunities, and social services as Jews. In addition, government spending and financial support are proportionally far lower in predominantly non-Jewish areas than in Jewish areas."

"According to the press, an Interior Ministry report released during 1998 noted that non-Jewish communities receive significantly less government financial support than their Jewish counterparts."

"Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged the Government's "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab villages and towns, on the grounds that it discriminates against Arab citizens."

"Arab children make up about one-quarter of the public school population, but government resources for them are not proportionate to those for Jewish children. Many schools in Arab communities are dilapidated and overcrowded...."

"......... only 2 percent of the Ministry of Religious Affairs budget goes to the non-Jewish sector. ......"

"The Government confers automatic citizenship and residence rights to Jewish immigrants, their families, and Jewish refugees under the Law of Return. This law does not apply to non-Jews or to persons of Jewish descent who have converted to another faith."

"The Government designates religion on national identity documents, but not on passports."

"......... the Government imposes some restrictions on its Muslim citizens who perform the Hajj, including requiring that they be over the age of 30. The Government does not allow them to return if they leave the country without formal permission."

"Those not subject to the draft have less access than other citizens to those social and economic benefits for which military service is a prerequisite or an advantage, such as housing, new-household subsidies, and government or security-related industrial employment". PalestineRemembered 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good material. Thanks, ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [14] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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: [15][16][17] Tiamut 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Check this out: [18] and go to the discussion page in general to have a look at what it looks like now. Where have you seen that kind of tactic before? Tiamut 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help. annoynmous 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on keeping on. I am trying, but I guess I have a little too much pride, almost to the point of being a fault. I have to work on cultivating my dignity. You make a great example. :) Tiamut 00:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pride is a good thing. Take it easy.... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after you helped me with Kurt Nimmo I got a ban. Isarig complained to the notice board an slimvirgin banned me for 2 hours. I got banned for an edit war I was having on the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair with Isarig. I actually had two edit wars going on with Isarig in that article and the one on Nimmo. I'm going to continue with my edits, but I'm afraid that Isarig and his intimidation tactics will get me banned again. Can you give some back-up and talk to slimvirgin or some other administrator to keep Isarig from banning me.

Also could you continue with my edits if I get banned again.annoynmous 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi annoynmous,

Apealing to slimvirgin to restrain Isarig looks to me like a total waste of time, as she will always back Isarig up however outrageous his behaviour, and will use any opportunity possible to block anyone opposing Isarig. I am not going to get involved in these edit wars because life is too short, and also because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about either of these two issues. Don't edit war. Make watertight arguments on the talk pages, invite fresh editor involvement via RFC. Allow your opponents to expose themselves by their own unreasonable actions. And don't give our friends any pretext to block you. Good luck and take it easy. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the 3RR justification. It's nice to know that these things aren't necessarily lost causes. Chris Cunningham 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is an interesting discussion at the ANI. One of your diffs was cited, and 'educational' blocks have been threatened. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#Personal_attacks_and_claims_of_COI. For some reason, the threatening user, User:Jayjg, did not notify the people he was considering as targets. Somehow that seems contrary to the 'educational' objective. I thought you'd like to know. The Behnam 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear understanding among admins and editors, including The Benham that there was a confusion between WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and that Jay's edits where not violations of the latter. Whether they are of the former was not discussed, and his while his brusquness and curtness was addressed, they too are not WP:COI violations. WP:COI is very specific, and it may help of you were to review it carefully. As for POV, that is a different issue. I hope that clarifies issues a bit. Thanks. -- Avi 13:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of WP:COI is

Close relationships

[edit]

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.^[1] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area.

There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to it.

ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who is the Karl Marx to Jay's Frederich Engels? Your extrapolation is improper. You have an Arabic signature, should it be a conflict of interest for you to edit on anything elating to Islam, Israel, the Koran, the middle East, AND calligraphy? -- Avi 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Israel. Of course I would not argue that Jay should not edit articles concerning Israel where he obviously is knowlegeable. But he should excercise restraint when deleting criticism. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay is not an employee of the government of the state of Israel, nor is the state of Israel a person of which Jay was a lifelong student. Which is why WP:COI is inapplicable. You may wish to read a bit about Friedrich Engels and his relationship with Marx. -- Avi 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that he was. But then neither was Engles an employee of Marx. The question I was raising was one of "close relationships". ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was a life-long collaborator and student of Marx, not even remotely similar . -- Avi 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a statement about the employment of a fellow editor, and I think a "citation required" is in order. He tells us he makes 20,000 edits a year, so each edit takes less than 6 minutes on average over an 8 hour day, 5 days a week, throughout the working year (assuming he takes no time off to read what others are writing, or answer his e-mail). Do you have any indication that he doesn't work in PR for Israel? PalestineRemembered 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, No I have no idea where he is employed or if he has a job at all. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (or should that be شكراً) for your appreciation. I am trying to tidy up/add to the Israeli politics section as there is a lot of stuff missing, a lot of stuff badly written/formatted, and a lot of bias (from both sides). I'm sure our paths will cross again! Number 57 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afwan! Keep up the good work! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna help? There was nothing on internal refugees from the 1948 war, so I drafted this stub, Internally Displaced Palestinians. If you have stuff to add, it would be appreciated. It's a huge subject and I could use some help. Tiamut 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good start, and certainly more than a stub. But unfortunately I lack the knowledge of this important issue that I would need to help. But keep up the good work! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You remembered International Women's Day? You're a star Abuali. Thanks for the good wishes. Tiamut 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your interest in this article, you may want to look at recent edits, and also at my talk page. RolandR 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check out the article Law of Return? Thanks. Tiamut 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments Abu Ali. I know that it's almost not worth it to continue trying to add balance to those pages, but the funny thing with me and fairness, truth and justice is that I just can't let it go. Thoughts create reality my friend. So I work mostly on trying to get distance when things get heated and keeping my head up and my wits about me. It's true I waste so much time fighting just to get a couple of sentences added. But it must be worth it. What's that saying about innovation being 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? I'm sweating up a storm here. Something's gotta give. :) Tiamut 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The injustice on these pages is nothing compared to the injustice you can see every time you look out of your window. So you have to keep a sense of proportion. Thoughts are important. But irrespective of the efforts of our friends here on Wikipedia and their little victories, they are loosing the war. Israel is the most hatred country in the world. More people see Israel as a threat to world peace than any other country. And this is not the result of "Palestinian Propoganda" but of the actions of Israels own leaders. Take it easy ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hey. I just saw User:Humus Sapiens revert. Can't get sucked into revert wars! So despite the multiple edits I made to get that section down to a bare minimum summary of Palestinian criticisms of the Law of Return and introduce some balance into that section, which it is sorely lacking, I'll just let them temporarily kill another perfectly legitimate edit that doesn't accord with their POV. Maybe someone else will come to the rescue on the merits of the edit itself, judging it by its encyclopedic value and against WP:NPOV. Hope springs eternal. :) (and yeah, about your comments above, I know in some ways that we don't even have to do anything. They're doing it to themselves. But it's not just about that, it's more about truth and fairness and giving a voice to all parties involved so that the future can be healthy instead of f&*#ked like it is now. :) Tiamut 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[19] and his response here: [20]. I thought you should know. It's amazing the lengths people will go to censor such serious "thoughtcrimes". Unbelievable. Tiamut 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well to their credit they haven't vandalised my page, or indef blocked me. Well not yet at least. When I get a bit of free time, I'll try to put something more thought provoking on my user page. Meanwhile congratulations on the Kittens! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are just the cutest things you ever saw: I love newborns of all shapes, sizes and types. The potential for good seems limitless in the face of new life. Going to take a peak at them immediately puts things into perspective when things get randy around here. Once they get a little bigger, I'll be sure to keep them close by. :) Tiamut 14:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin so I wouldn't block you (and even if I were one I wouldn't block you, I'd ask someone else to if they thought it to be right). Just like you wouldn't want me to say, "Yasser Arafat may have died from AIDS." on my user page, or put a list of all political figures who committed crimes in your country (obviously it's harder to do that, as the PA isn't really at the stage where it's arresting politicians who are corrupt, etc.). Just because you're doing it indirectly doesn't mean it's okay. Anyway, I'd obviously not start removing stuff from your user page and I asked for his opinion as I know I'm bound to be more easily offended\have a problem with something of the sort. Yonatan ^talk 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu, could you please email me? huldra999 "at" hotmail "dot" com (<-to avoid those bots ). Thanks, Huldra 21:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your interest and expertise in editing pages on Israeli leadership, I was wondering if you could take the time to add to this article I just created. Thanks. Tiamut 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have not heard of him. But I will try to look him up and see if there is anything I can add. Best regards to you, your family and your new kittens... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both the offer to check it out and the best wishes to the fam (my husband comes home tomorrow thankfully so that I can take a break form this crazy editing schedule) and the kittens (I want to eat them they're so cute!). I had never hear of him either, and only came upon his name when investigating the origins of Israel's Hafrada policy. As I was reading, I realized just how important he is to policy formation, particularly over the last decade. Anyway, I just thought I would share. Tiamut 15:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you know anything about the late Proffesor Israel Shahak. His bio page on wikipedia is devoted slandering hime as an antisemite and attempts to smear him by association with neo nazis. (sounds familiar?) Huldra removed a particularly offensive passage about him being a too of neo-nazis, and after her edits were reverted, I opened a discussion on the talk page about this. I used to read his reports, but that was before the days of the internet and can not find them on-line. Do you know if there is a collection anywhere? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do know Shahak's work (and it's terrible that people keep trying to marginalize his serious and important body of work). I remember that my Baba used to have books and articles of his in the expansive Middle East collection he kept. I will try to find Internet sources and I'll ask my dad if he remembers where they ended up. Tiamut 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a review of the book, Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections, [21] in the WRMEA that quotes and discusses one of Shahak’s essay. You might find this quote very relevant to the issue at hand:

  Zionism, writes Shahak, "can be described as a mirror image of anti-Semitism," since it, like the anti-Semites, holds that Jews are everywhere aliens who would best be isolated from the rest of the world. Moreover, "both anti-Semites and Zionism assume anti-Semitism is ineradicable and inevitable."

• This article [22] at the History News Network entitled, "Poisoning the Well: The False Equation of Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism" by Professor Irfan Khawaja addresses the smears laid against Shahak and a slew of others. She say there is a broad trend of

  … reflexive equation, by defenders of Israel, of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, itself part of the emerging literature on "the new anti-Semitism." Focusing on the undeniable fact that many anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, and that anti-Zionism can easily be used as a disguise for anti-Semitism, writers in this genre simply insist over and over that no one can be an anti-Zionist without simultaneously being an anti-Semite ... What is at work here is less a discernible principle than a robotic sort of cut-and-paste procedure: Come up with a list of people who a priori must be anti-Semites; then cast about for ‘evidence’ of this claim by finding sentences here or there to which you give an anti-Semitic interpretation regardless of the intention of the author or the context of the utterance. Where the evidence is simply too thin to support a straightforward accusation, insinuate that anti-Semitism is at work without actually making an assertion that it is. Repeat the process until you run out of people.

• And finally, this is an article about a talk that Shahak gave with Chomsky [23] that described the debate provoked by their analyses:

We are doing to Palestinians what Christians have done to [Jews]," Shahak continued, tracing the history of the oppression of Jews throughout European history. "It is quite common that a persecuted group becomes a persecutor," he said.

… In reply to the audience's hostility, Shahak said that Jews who perpetuate a "denial of common humanity" are "Jewish Nazis." Another audience member angrily responded to Shahak, "You were lucky you survived [the Holocaust], but 6 million Jews didn't."

Several others said that Shahak's use of the phrase "Jewish Nazis" was disrespectful to the memory of the Holocaust. Shahak maintained that "Jews can become Nazis."

It's addictive. I start researching a subject and the more information I find, the more I want to share and write. I'm also taking advantage of the free time to get my edit fix so that when my partner is here I have time to spend with him, free from thoughts of article categoriztion or reliable sources needed for article X. Is there a wiki help group for this kind of thing? :) Tiamut 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows.... Wishing you, your husband a happy reunion. Take it easy. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, he said to Salam alayk and ya'atik il aafi. He knows about my Wiki work and hears stories about some of the interesting twists and turns of debates around here. Our computers face each other, so he often gets an earful. :) See you around. Tiamut

Give him my regards too. And tell him that I say he is a lucky guy! All the best to both of you (+ the kittens). ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell him (his long-awaited arrival has been delayed for a day - but that's life :) and thanks for thinking so. All the best to you too. Tiamut 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well add him to your "list of watched pages" too... ;/ Yonatan ^talk 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll read up on him. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why him? Tewfik^Talk 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing on the talk page to support your recent reversion of fully-discussed edits on Israel Shahak. Please self-revert your violation of WP:NPOV. -- TedFrank 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Talk: Israel Shahak: 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 will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TedFrank 13:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Matzpen, you will be blocked from editing.

Considering your history of ill faith edits and contribution to Israeli-related articles on wikipedia^[24] (hat tip to your user page), and the way you handle editing disputs by "war reverting" ^{See talk page, moved terms there for discussion. <-> revert "POV"} without even considering wiki's NPOV and the changes made, i'm issuing yet another "final warning" to you in regards to that latest revert - please self revert and join the discussion on the talk page so I can remove this warning and we can resume proper wiki editing ettiquette. Jaakobou 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Jaakobou, Contrary to your accusation, I did not blank the page. If you make too many final warnings, people may end up not taking you too seriously. In my oppinion it is better to discuss with those who you disagree with than to ban them. Take it easy ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this nonsense? Abu Ali didn't delete or blank any page contents, as a look at the page history will show. He simply reverted your POV edits to my neutral formulation. Jaakobou's accusation is so over-the-top, it is hard to take it seriously. RolandR 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the template may be imperfect, but this reffers to "tag team war reverting" after the dispute has been raised in the talk page. Jaakobou 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Matzpen for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.

1. I'm not much interested in your personal POV interpertations/misrepresentations and narrative personal questioning, i.e. "regime", "occupation","checkpoints","unpaid".^[25]
2. In regards to your personal question, I get the opportunities that many in the arab world are denied. In fact, those opportunities are also given to Israeli Arabs despite their not doing their share in the duties of the country (Druze people aside).
3. Since you've shown no intention to self-revert (or even honestly discuss on the talk page) despite the well given opportunities to do so^{24 march25 march25 march}, I am forced to revert your "tag-team revert" and repeat my previous warning that if you repeat this offense you will be blocked.
4. On a side note, I 100% disagree with your terminology and narrative considering the selective and politicaly motivated aplication of it, and despite your personal beliefs - you can still be a constructive wikipedia editor (i.e. opposite of destructive^[26][27][28]) even in cases of disputes. However, you should make an effort and not play revert games. Jaakobou 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we will have to agree to disagree. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked at the patronising tone adopted by Jaakobou: "you can still be a constructive wikipedia editor", "you should make an effort". Almost as though he is entitled to approve your contributions, or give them marks. Quite a colonial attitude, in fact; it doesn't surprise me that you are offended by such remarks. But don't worry; his threats are empty and there should be no way you can be blocked over your legitimate edits. RolandR 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offended or suprised by his remarks. I have heard many similar. But on Wikipedia these remarks can be seen by all, and as you point out are quite instructive. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message, I thought that I had left word on all the proper places that by notability I meant WP:ORG. Just in case I wasn't clear, there need to be multiple nontrivial sources. The Haaretz piece you found is a good sign, but you'll need at least one more nontrivial source. Look at this as an opportunity to improve the article. Tewfik^Talk 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abu ali,

I could find no sign of any copyright information on the link that you provided. Could you please point to where the image is associated with the {{cc-by-2.5}} that you added? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I had read on their website www.activestills.org that their work could be used for all non-profit uses as long as its source was attributed. But I can't find it. I am trying to contact them to clarify this and to get a better quality image. Meanwhile I have removed the tag from the picture. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu ali, it would be really helpful if looked at the discussion on the Talk: page before reverting. The obituaries you claim were "deleted" are already listed on the page twice. Are you saying these articles are so special that they actually must be listed three times? It's certainly not done in any other article I've seen, nor have I ever seen and "Obituaries" section in an article. Please try to follow Wikipedia conventions, and participate in the talk page rather than reverting. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK once is enoughابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me (RolandR, not RonaldR. As I used to say when I was trying to learn Arabic in Jerusalem many years ago, and everyone called me Ronald, "Mish zay ar-rais" – ie Reagan).

Meanwhile, having noticed that the article on Ilan Halevi was mistakenly linked to Maavak Sozialisti, I have created a new article on Maavak. I hope to do more on other descendants of Matzpen, as time allows. Do you have any knowledge or information to contribute?

Please join me for a cup of coffee and a baklava.

RolandR 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your commentary is requested here: Sikkuy and criticism about Arab Israeli economy influencing culture. Jaakobou 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jaakobou RolandR 10:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on User talk:RolandR: 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 will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

feel free to add your point of view to the AV/I page, but personal attacks such as "the most poweful propganda against Zionism is the conduct of its adhereants", "Wikipedia would not be Wikipedia without the likes of jaakobou", "imply tacit approval of the bots attacking you", "I do feel honoured that Jaakobu chose to attack me in the same breath as your good self" is not appreciated one bit. Jaakobou 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is being considered for FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem. I was hoping for an additional POV assessment and saw you were an expert in the area. nadav 12:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Nadav. I would not claim to be an expert in the area. But I don't think the current article does justice to the political battle surrounding the status of Jerusalem (which is considered one of the insoluble core issues in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). regards, ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam. Thanks for the response. Oh, what I meant is that you looked like you had a lot of experience in trying to make Israel articles more NPOV. Earlier, I felt the FAC was not getting the perspective of someone who actually has an opposing viewpoint, and instead people were just hazarding guesses about what could be objectionable. The debate is now revolving around the article's lead, and I suggested we make the second sentence of the first paragraph read "Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital of a future Palestinian state." The idea is to acknowledge that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel as of now, but that in future it will also be under Palestinian control. If you or anyone else can help to make it more neutral, that would be excellent. I am beginning to depair, since people seem to prefer pushing their own POVs over letting the article reach FA status by embracing all opinions. It seems Wikiproject Israel is doomed forever to have only one FA. nadav 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a short comment on the FA page which may give the "other" perspective. I have actually found that most of the Israeli editors here OK to work with. My main problems have not been with Israelis but with their American supporters. Best of luck! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. FYI, the article's FAC has been restarted after the FAC director thought the discussion got too complicated. nadav 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i'm leaving. With no bad feelings. Just a bit of frustration and a strong belief that things could be better. But i know that a long trip begins with a necessary first step, and i believe Wikipedia is this first step in the road to a good cooperative encyclopedia. I've stated my vision on my userpage, if that interests you. As i noted there, i'm giving a shot to the Wikidot.com wiki farm, where i've opened an account under the username "Itay" and have created a similarly named site. I will surely continue to use (i.e. read and adapt content from) Wikipedia, and probably also contribute content/copyedit from time to time. Maybe anonymously, maybe under my old username. I wish you too all the best both in real life and in the virtual cosmos of a Wikipedia. So long. Itayb 12:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for your dedication and hard-work to mitigate the many pro-Zionist POV articles around here. Special cheers for your relentless work countering the apologists of Deir Yassin. Best of luck. Lixy 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I just wanted to pop in and say hi and ya'atik al aafiya for continuing where those less able to put up the constant harassment have failed. Samudeen. Tiamut 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! Welcome!

Tiamut 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Abu Ali. No, I don't think the students get the treatment Arabs get, and I haven't seen Magav troops deployed to suppress their riots yet. The whole business is a rather minor issue, students in Israel only strike about tuition fees.--Doron 04:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuition fees are important if you are a student. And if Haaretz decides to devote an editorial to condeming the students then it is probably significant.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into the subject. Tewfik^Talk 05:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have created a stub at 2007 Israeli student strike. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Abu ali. I'm not on strike (stopped studying a while ago), but many of my friends are. I haven't asked them about the details of what is going on. All I understood from them were the basics that it is strike against tuition hikes which nobody seems able to afford. I can ask around tonight and get back to you with some info/insights tomorrow if you are interested. Tiamut 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never stopped studying, (in the university of life). Yes, I'm interrested. Another aspect is the Jewish/Arab angle which the media has hinted at. To what extent does this struggle include Arab students or is it an exclusively Jewish Israeli thing? Shukran Iktir ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey abu ali,

Please reconsider your last warning regarding my links on wiki. They r indeed to a specific site but that site has articles which wikipedia's readers can find helpful & learn a lot from. I allwas try to make sure that any external link that i add to wiki is of a natural pov & of academic nature. Please reconsider.

Yuval a

OK, I removed the warning. But you should be careful as most of your edits seem to be adding links to this site. There may be an issue op WP:COI if you are associated with this site. Good luck ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thant you,

yuval

By the way,

I don't think there is a COI because I only add links to objective articles, most written by professionals.

If you noticed a link I added, that you consider partial or biased, feel free to remove it – like jack Bauer & his 24's sidekicks characters, I try not to get to emotionally attached to my links :-) . . .

Have a nice day' and thanks again.

Yuval

Hey Abu Ali. I just got a new computer and it doesn't have Arabic language support installed. I am working on the Palestine article and was wondering if you could spend a minute to go there and add the Arabic name for Canaan, alongside the Hebrew. Thanks in advance. Tiamut 09:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help, because I have no arabic keys here. Sorry... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I decided to remove the languages anyway since I noticed afterward that they are in the English articles on each subject. Thanks anyway. Tiamut 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your recent (May 16) edits to Zionist political violence. You may want to take a look at the article on The Jewish Resistance Movement. Perhaps this (JRM) could be mentioned on that page (ZPV). Regards, Perspicacite 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Salaam U Alaikum ya Ali, I was wondering if you could read Arabic because I wanted to expand on the city of Yattah in the West Bank, and although it is a large city with population of +40000, there is barely any info on the net for it. In English that is. However I found the city's website on Yahoo.com, but it is written in Arabic and cannot be translated into English. If you can read Arabic script, I was hoping you could extract info about the city and contribute it to the article on wikipedia. If you cannot I understand and if this is the case than can you poin out anybody who can read Arabic for me, and I'll inform on the article. Thanks a whole lot, Ma' as Salaamy -- Al Ameer son 22:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the website: http://www.isow-yatta.org/

אתה יודע עברית?--Gilisa 09:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your kind words Abu Ali. I hope you stay on at House demolition; I look forward to working with you.--G-Dett 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have noticed your interest in categories. Could you have a look at the last few changes at Category:Jerusalem and Category:Geography of Jerusalem? Are not parts of Jerusalem considered to be disputed territory? And aren't those parts considered to be part of the West Bank and the Palestinian territories by the international community? The intro to Jerusalem says something similar.--Timeshifter 15:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some more comments would be appreciated at this categories for deletion discussion for Category:East Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WE as editors are not evaluating major publications like daily telegarph. we just quote them. the reader can evalute each WP:RS source. please read the policy. 07:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

They have used forged documents in an attempt to incriminate a british politician and were forced to pay lible damages by the british courts. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British courts force nearly every publication to pay libel damages at one point or another. By that metric there are no reliable sources. Again, please read the policy. THF 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was surprised by your latest edit to the Anti-Zionism article. Did you seriously think it had any chance of remaining unchallenged?

We seem to have been on the same side of a number of CfD discussions and I supported your previous edit to the AZ article, but your last edit was clearly non-POV.

In the talk page I proposed a sentence for the lede that described the spectrum of views held and actions taken by anti-Zionists. I would be interested to see your comments. --Peter cohen 12:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Mr Cohen, I will have a look. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu ali, if you hadn't been blindly reverting me you would have noticed that the removal of the material was explained a number of times both in edit summaries and in Talk:Norman_Finkelstein#Counterpunch_vs._WP:BLP this section of the Talk: page. WP:BLP violations are serious stuff; persistent violators are often blocked. Fortunately for you, I've simply reverted you this time. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom my good friend Jayjg, Your accusation of blind reverts is false. When you undo an edit, a notice is displayed saying "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." If you follow this advice you may find that fewer of your edits are reverted. With respect tho the Norman Finkelstein edit, I saw that you deleted relevant and sources material without any comment. I think the material is worthy of inclusion in the article. BLP is irrelevant here as the quote in question defends rather than attacks Finkelstein. Your deletion of the material smells like an attempt to smear Finkelstein while silencing his defenders. I note your thinly veiled threat to block me, which is realy a threat to abuse your administrative tools to silence someone who does not share your ideology. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous edit summaries when removing the material were quite clear, as was the Talk: page. You didn't check that out, but rather just reverted blindly. When material claims that Dershowitz did something that was "blatantly and knowingly fraudulent", you can be damn sure it's a WP:BLP issue. As for blocking, read WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.. Blocking in this case is not an "abuse of administrative tools", but the proper use of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully suggest being very careful on articles related to controversial topics as it seems that a number of powerful administrators are interested in enforcing certain points of view on them. It is best to be a little circumspect about the matter, and strictly adhere to any Wikipedia rules, even where they are not being enforced fairly and impartially. Rather than escalate the situation I think it is more productive to build a good reputation on Wikipedia and work toward adminship yourself, or nominate people for adminship whom you think would be more fair. Of the utmost importance is avoiding being blocked, even temporarily, as once the precedent of blocking you is established it may be happen more and more easily in the future. Good luck and thanks for your work. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. But I don't do adminship. Blocking people I disagree with is not my style. I prefer discussing with them. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abu ali. You are off to such a great start on the article House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As-Salaam u Alaikum Abu Ali, I was wondering if you or I would somehow be able to add the picture of Downtown Kafr Yasif and Shaghur from their Hebrew articles to their English ones. I tried but I don't think they are in the same format and I asked Abnn but I realized he has not been active since the end of May. The link to the Hebrew articles are here, [29] [30] -- Al Ameer son 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marhaba!

I added the image to Kfar Yasif ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shukran a ktheer ya sayid Abu Ali, I saw it and then relocated it to the info box. -- Al Ameer son 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. This is not acceptable. --Wasell^(D) 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking people who disagree with your edits is a very zionist approach. Why don't you try instead to justify why your material should stay in the lead? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks on editors, such as you have done above (allegations of "zionist approach") and restrict your comments to constructive criticism on articles. We have prohibitions regarding personal attacks and harrasment. Thank you. -- Avi 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it does not belong in the lead and have moved it to the section describing Yassin's role in the creation of Hamas. -- Avi 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good that we can agree on something ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Six-Day War. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your comment: "The question is: is this Wikipedia or Zionipedia. If the former then a prefer the NPOV title suggested above." was uncivil and unproductive. Another user and I had responded to a question by citing longstanding wikipedia policy. You could have responded productively by challenging our facts or our interpretation of policy. There was no need for name-calling and hostility. GabrielF 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd pop in and say hello (and without leaving a warning template in my wake :). I also noticed your good work at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and am happy to see that it survived the POV-motivated AfD. Keep on keeping on. Tiamat 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would you mind popping in to take a look at the Palestinian people article? I made some changes to the article there that seem to be encountering resistance. A second look by an editor with expertise on the subject would be great. If there is anything I have added that is not supported by the sources cited (or articles linked), do let me know. Thanks. Tiamat 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

she/He is a muslim yet disagrees with the quran the quran says "And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": it also says "And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride)."

How is that not idiotic? And also i have seen a lot of twisted logic on Muslim sites I saw many muslims trying to claim the Gospel of Barnabas is authentic even though it has been proved over and over again to be a forgery the claimed a Gospel of Barnabas of the 300's is the same as the Gospel of Barnabas which appeared for the first time in 1600ish --Java7837 09:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abu ali. I see Java has brought his commentary to your talk page now. It amazes me that people automatically assume that because someone is Palestinian that they are Muslim. It also amazes me that they think that all Muslims are religious (I can't tell you how many atheists or agnostics I know who are Muslim, but I think it would surprise many). IMO, people who quote scripture to make political arguments and are full of bigoted hatred against those who don't share their belief in the supremacy of God's word (as interpreted by them of course), aren't really worth arguing with. By the way, thanks for pointing out to Java that his comments on my talk page were inappropriate. It only seems to have brought more of the same here though, eh? Oh well. Tiamat 13:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have heard it many times before. If you are Palestinian, you must be Muslim, if you are Muslim, you must be a Fundamentalist and if you are Fundamentalist, then you must be a Terrorist. And let's not let reality confuse us:-) Take it easy... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your succinct summary hits the nail on the head. I hope my comment didn't imply that religious people of any or all faiths are bad or suspicious. I just don't like to mix religion with politics, as a general rule. Tiamat 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've asked Jayjg here to explain his June 10 remark about Palestineremembered.com on Naji al-Ali. --DieWeisseRose 09:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said (of Rachel Corrie) that "There was NO consensus on the previous version. The new one is much better. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"

Can you remind us what your prefered version looked like? PalestineRemembered 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do me a favor, don't open up old disputes/issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sounded a bit schoolmarmish.--G-Dett 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re my request to RR. My problem with that source is that it gives 133,000 (the 1997 census figure) for the Palestinian Hebronites. That figure on the Hebron page has been now updated to 166,000. I could quote the page you indicate (530) but it does not seem to reflect the latest census data. I like to be coherent on these questions, and citing this as a source for Jewish Hebronites would involve me in a tendentious use of sources to favour one lower figure (which looks however pretty close to the truth) while bolstering another source for a higher Palestinian figure. But thanks for the indication. CheersNishidani 18:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You read Segev and you don't see why "jewish state" is an important nuance in the lead concerning al-Husseini... Don't you understand that if Husseini was against a jewish national home in Plaestine, it means he wanted to kill them all.
. Alithien 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have disappeared this year. I hope you have not retired from Wikipedia, and hope to see your contributions again in the near future. RolandR (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Gaza factional conflict.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abu ali! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 190 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Riyad al-Maliki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit comments at Committee for a Workers' International (1974) you wrote: "restoring the documents around the split. Snowy is a member of the the ISA section in Canada. The ISA is intent on hiding the documents which provide the political basis of the 2019 split". A) I'm not a member of ISA b) I did not remove "the documents", I removed your description which promote a website you appear to be affiliated with in violation of WP:COI. Sowny (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Socialist Party (Ireland), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISA. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Committee for a Workers' International (2019) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for a Workers' International (2019) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Golightlys (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abu ali. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Committee for a Workers' International (1974), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should try reading WP:PA WP:AFG. And when you disagree with some content, try talking about it on the talk page, rather than edit warring. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You are clearly an individual involved with the Committee for a Workers' International (refounded), as is obvious to discern from your heavy, inappropriate sourcing via their website and groups, the blatant biased inclusion using CWI sources to include "bad news" about the competing Trotskyist organisation ISA, and now clear attempts to hijack an article on the historical organisation to instead be about your group. If you continue editing any pages associated with CWI I will take you to the relevant noticeboard to seek administrative action against you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abu ali, this notice is to let you know that I've corrected some indentation that was lost during a change you made to your comment. The change I made can be seen here: Special:Diff/1244379372.

I made this change because when you made a change to your comment (as seen here: Special:Diff/1244188062) you lost indentation for the following lines. I did this because I was looking through the page history to find out if I needed to add a {{unsigned}} note to the original remark, as your signature no longer lined up. I did this as I was evaluating the RM for potential consensus.

If you feel like this was done in error, please revert my most recent change where I added the indentation.

Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Committee for a Workers' International (1974) and Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 14:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]