User talk:Alberuni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Alberuni, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. Some people do not pay attention to unsigned comments. An important note: Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

But above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

-- TPK 00:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Grand Mufti

Contents moved to Talk:Grand Mufti Image:WikiThanks.png--iFaqeer 19:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

But don't be be too bold

Like taking truths out of factual articles, cf September 11, 2001 attacks Matt Stan 19:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily. Matt Stan 19:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was trying to edit for readability. The article is over 30kb and I believed the long section on Previous Revelations needs to be broken out to other pages. The conspiracty stuff like Michael Moore's comments need to go to the conspiracy section or conspiracy wiki. Just MHO. Feel free to revert. It's a free encyclopedia!Alberuni 19:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What article are you folks talking about? Maybe others can help?--iFaqeer 20:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

9/11 Report

You mentioned that I may have been confusing the two 9/11 reports in a recent edit. I've made tons of edits today regarding the 9/11 Commission Report; which edit were you referring to? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:19, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hamdi

You did a great job on Hamdi, very quick, too. Maurreen 03:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


So? Is this NOT neutral enough for you?

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

see http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

You appear unclear on the concept of Neutrality. It is neutral to state that a poll of New York City residents indicates that nearly half believe U.S. government leaders knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. It is not neutral to refer to a site reporting those results as a "campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup." You see, the cover-up is not a neutral fact. It is an opinion. Surely, you can make more of an effort to be polite and to separate opinions from facts, can't you? Alberuni 05:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Insurance claims 9/11

Nice detail that you've added here (and pretty quick as I only put about insurance claims on there a few mins ago - I know my wording wasn't up to much, so I was hoping someone would replace it with something better asap (especially as I think the financial aspects of the disaster are worth mentioning in the article, albeit that they're much much less significant than the loss of life). Out of interest, where did you get your info from, or are you just v familiar with it all? Jongarrettuk 20:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The insurance disputes are an interesting issue but, yes, a sideshow to the main issues of direct loss of life, geopolitical wars and macroeconomic shifts caused by 9/11. I found this and this as sources for the info. Alberuni 20:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan

Well done on finding that. It looks to need quite a lot of NPOV work, probably including the title. Susvolans 15:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. I agree with your perception that this page needs alot of editing for NPOV. I would go further and say that there are many pages dealing with the Mideast that need this type of work. Some people intentionally inject a biased perspective into this encyclopedia as part of a propagandistic agenda. Others are unable to frame issues related to their closely held beliefs/biases into a more objective and neutral description. It's somewhat annoying to see blatant one-sided propaganda passed off as neutral fact but I guess this is an inevitable problem with any open source project dealing with highly controversial issues. Alberuni 15:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. There is nothing "biased" going on. Jordan took East Jerusalem and the West bank by military force and occupied it in defiance of the world community and even against the wishes of local Arabs. See What did the Arabs do about Jordan's annexation of the parts of Palestine they captured?. Also, several "Occupation" articles, unrelated to the Middle East, already exist on Wikipedia, see List of military occupations and Belligerent occupation. Thank you. IZAK 06:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your unbiased concern for victims of oppression and military occupation, like the one Israelis have been perpetrating against Palestinians for the past 37 years, for instance. Your heartfelt humanitarian concern for the plight of the Palestinians suffering under the Jewish state is to be commended. Kudos on your good work. Alberuni 14:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're on here a lot Alberuni, why haven't you shown any "humanitarian concern" for other groups? Out of the hundreds of edits you make every week, ALL of them are about Palestinians. Black Africans are being oppressed by Arabs on a much greater scale in the Sudan, why don't you talk about that?
I guess there's no time to answer questions on your talk page when you're too busy being an obnoxious little nerd on other people's pages. Get a life, you Arabian reject. -- Chaz

Sarcasm is not a subsitute for logic. IZAK 09:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was not being sarcastic. Is your concern for victims of military occupation one-sided, pro-Israeli and dishonest? Alberuni 03:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what you seem to perceive it seems you are on a true Jihad yourself, so I would be carefull of false accusations if I were you. IZAK 08:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[I]/////[P] => [I-P]

Hello Alberuni, I made the following proposal on Talk:Occupation of Palestine. Would you be interested in taking part in this?

I very much oppose the creation of alternative articles. True, it will be very difficult to write a single article that will still be readable and not just a point-counterpoint list. But the whole point of the NPOV policy is to avoid the proliferation of alternative articles. If it happens for Israel//Palestine, then it will set a precedent to be imitated on all controversial topics. Also, if there are alternative Israel//Palestine articles, they will each tend to become far more POV than they are now. I think that we need to write an article that manages to incorporate fair descriptions of the conflicting POVs into one single narrative. This would be very hard work, and it would require a lot of editors on this topic to open their minds and change their intransigeant stance, but if we succeed, it would be a very big achievement, and (at the risk of sounding a bit pompous now) I think it might actually contribute to the understanding necessary for a genuine peace process. On the other hand you are right that it is much easier to start fresh. Also, all attempts to improve tha current Israel//Palestine articles are pretty futile, because they always descend into bickering about details. We really need to focus on the bigger picture, that's essential to writing a readable and enlightening article. I think Buff has given us a good outline of points of that bigger picture. So here is what I suggest:

  1. Those who share a similar critique of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict article get together and make a thorough analysis of where that article fails ;
  2. We make a list of the main points where the article fails, as well as a list of what we can keep ;
  3. Those who agree with the criticisms list get together and start a draft for a completely new article (at this point, those who disagree with the criticisms would not be allowed to pick it apart through the usual bickering about the details) ;
  4. This new draft article would be based on Buffs outline above as well as the two lists from the current article ;
  5. Only after we finish with the new draft do we ask those who defend the status quo of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article to contribute and edit the draft, and adapt the broad narrative to incorporate their views - but edits by those (from both sides) who do not try to engage constructively will be rigorously reverted ;
  6. When the draft has stabilised somewhat, we make it into the new Israeli-Palestinian conflict article.

In a nutshell, the strategy I propose for writing a NPOV Israel//Palestine consists of:

  • hammering out a narrative supported by a broad consensus - when we have achieved that it won't be too difficult to deal with the details
  • thereby marginalising those who refuse productive co-operation and try to destroy a consensus-based narrative (which has always been the aim of the NPOV policy)

Tell me what you think of this. - pir 15:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quoting Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Nice idea in principle but I suspect an "Israeli/Palestinian narrative with a broad consensus" is a pipe dream. People on both sides of this conflict have extremely different and often conflicting POVs making the issue resistant to negotiation, compromise, and consensus. As long as this is an open-source project, people will be free to continuously edit out each others' versions and edit in their own biased views. Just like in "real-life", the side that is more organized and technologically savvy imposes its will on the other side. Alberuni 16:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi Alberuni, thanks for the link to that other article. I don't necessarily disagree with you (on the likelihood of a "Israeli/Palestinian narrative with a broad consensus"), but what do you suggest? Do you think that the current state of these articles is acceptable? I think they are very bad, not in the sense that they would contain a lot of inaccuracies or heavy POVs, but in the sense that there's so much bickering about details, and in the end they don't allow a reader to find out what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about. I think that's unacceptable. Personally, I didn't have a clue about this conflict until very recently, it's just impossible to understand it from the reporting in the mainstream press. I think it would be very important for Wikipedia to help and address this problem.
Also, I think it is not just morally but also tactically a good idea to make the first move towards building a concensus, because then the other side has to decide to either engage constructively or to adopt a rejectionist stance. The former would constitute a significant progress, the latter would expose them in the eyes of observers. In addition taking such an initiative helps to build trust, which is the very basis for co-operation.
In my eyes, it's very important to write an improved I-P article as a draft. Once we have done that there are several ways to go on (1) engage with the intransigeant "supporter of Israel" faction and make it into the main I-P article ; (2) if that fails, we can try the "two state" approach with a split article (I agree with you that it doesn't work on Wiki, but it could be a transitory solution that would help to find a proper solution, like the "two-state solution" could in my mind be transitory to the binational solution of the real I-P conflict ... funny how articles here really reflect the real world!) ; (3) if that fails we can have an alternative article to I-P conflict. Any of these three outcomes would be an improvement to the current situation, plus it would help to organise Wikipedians who could be described as more anti-Zionist. - pir 10:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I wish you well. I think HistoryBuffER did a great job starting to point out the biases in that article. It's going to take alot of work no matter how you slice it. It's probably best to work within the existing Wikipedia system to submit one edit at a time, contesting the biased statements and slowly but surely chipping away at the pro-Israeli slant until a more objective NPOV emerges. I'll try to do my part and will look forward to reading your edits and those by others who want to make Wikipedia a more useful resource. Alberuni 14:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Talk:Jewish refugees [1]

The Jews living in Arab countries were Arabs, just like their Christian and Muslim fellow citizens. Self-determination and sovereignty applies to nations, not religious groups. Many Arab Jews worked to liberate their countries from European colonialism. The Jews are not a nation unto themselves despite the Zionist propaganda. ... Alberuni 14:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misled, colleague. May I kindly suggest you learn the basics before editing articles on the subject. Pick any reputable source (e.g. A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson). Good luck. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your trouble with an admin

I personally have never seen Jayjg abuse his sysop priveleges, but I am aware that a few users (notably User:xed and User:blankfaze) consider him a "rogue administrator." Others consider him to be a fine contributor.

When you have trouble with a user, whether it's a sysop or not, the best way to procede is to first try your best to assume good faith in the user. Don't accuse people of things like stalking you, and don't use inflamatory language (like "Why not call it Ziopedia?"). If you're sure there's a problem, try to talk it over with the person on his or her talk page, in as non-confrontational a way as possible. If this doesn't work, you can request mediation. I hope this helps! – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I will follow your advice but I see no future in collaborations with Jayjg.Alberuni 20:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg is both a well-known stalker and relentless extremist who has no understanding of admin responsibilities and constantly pushes his viewpoint. --- Xed 22:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble to confirm my observations and unpleasant experience with this individual. Alberuni 23:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your sage advice Quadell. I've been pleading with Alberuni to work co-operatively, and to talk things over with me on my Talk: page, and even been very positive about some of his edits, but as yet to no avail. Jayjg 20:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Final attempt at a return to civility

Alberuni, your many ad hominem statements towards me on Talk: pages over the past couple of weeks have violated some primary Wikipedia rules, including (but certainly not limited to) Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In a number of cases you have knowingly made false statements about my actions, in particular accusing me of re-directing articles which you are aware I have never re-directed. Though I have generally ignored these violations, at times I have requested that you cease this behaviour, and instead reserve the Talk: pages for discussions of article content (not me), and work collegially with me in editing articles. I have even complimented you on some of your edits, in an attempt to defuse the situation. However, so far you have rejected my requests (as well as those of other editors) to cease these personal attacks. I am requesting again that you indicate to me clearly and without qualification that you will follow Wikipedia norms regarding etiquette. I am placing this note on your Talk: page to indicate to you how seriously I take this. Respectfully, Jayjg 21:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg methods include sounding reasonable on Talk pages whilst pushing extremist views on the actual pages. He frequently resorts to quoting various Wikipedia rules whilst ignoring the central tenet of Wikipedia: NPOV. --- Xed 14:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your description of manipulative passive/aggressive behavior is accurate, in my opinion. Some people are like insects. It's better to just ignore them as in WP Dispute Resolution step 1. "Avoidance: The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place." Alberuni 15:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In light of your responses here and elsewhere, and your continued personal attacks, I have opened an RfC concerning you; I encourage you to represent yourself there: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni Jayjg 14:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your campaigning

Again, I'll have to ask you to please stop your barrage of personal attacks on WP users. This is counterproductive to both your political cause (whatever it is) and the collaborative spirit of WP. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to be more specific? Alberuni 16:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Various occupations

Alberuni hi.

I don't know if you were around during this VfD — I assume you at least know about it, since your attempt is markedly similar — but you should know that HistoryBuffEr did not get his way. The resulting page is not at all like he envisioned it. Even if your page survives (which does not seem likely at the moment), people would get to it and make it NPOV. The result: no gain for your purposes, and lots of extra work for everybody (including yourself). Please retract it. Everyone will gain a lower blood pressure.

Thanks.

Gadykozma 14:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You mean people would get to it and distort it with their Zionist POV making it like the existing pages and useless for our purposes - which is to build a truly NPOV version free of Zionist propaganda. Thanks for your input.Alberuni 14:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not shocked by your formulation. In effect, I assumed that's your opinion. The goal that you call "build a truly NPOV version free of Zionist propaganda" and I call differently would not be served. So why waste everyone's time? Gadykozma 22:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Al Mezan Center for Human Rights

Thanks for the rewrite on this page. Just one thing: could you cut&paste your text to the temporary page so we can clear the history of copyright violation in the normal fashion (deleting the main page and moving in the temp)? I'd do it, but you're responsible for the rewrite and so you deserve proper credit in the edit history. Thanks. —No-One Jones (m) 19:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's all taken care of now. —No-One Jones (m) 21:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupied Palestinian Territories (look there for the context)

I am assuming good faith and trying to calm the things down there. I am moving all the heated discussions in which you had participated on that page away to the relevant talk pages (i.e., once it stops (IMHO) being on-topic for the VfD discussion, I moved it over to the talk page of the user it was addressed to. Here's, for example, one that begins with Jayjg's comment to you. BACbKA 22:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni is capable of making NPOV edits, but (on articles related to Israel) more often than not chooses not to do so. And I see both sides of the conflict; however, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for presenting just one side. Jayjg 20:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You should probably be giving concrete examples, given the heated state of the matters here. And for both of you, given the fact that you two can't (yet) work together without fighting, I doubt that you really see all the sides of the conflict :-) OTOH, I doubt that a lot of people do (I'm sure a lot of people think they do...) BACbKA 22:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your disagreement with the neutrality of my edits is in the vast majority of cases due to your extreme pro-Zionist POV, not due to any lack of objectivity in my edits. It's your POV that makes you think neutral edits are unacceptable. Just look at the history of Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights for example. You base your edits on your own opinions while mocking the facts. It's reprehensible. Alberuni 20:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest to you two to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution when I noticed it mentioned on the talk page of the Al-Mezan article already. Alberuni, you still seem to be a bit nervous when talking to Jayjg, and you keep using much more unnecessary (IMHO) labeling epithets and other rhetoric instead of proving your case. To have you two working together, you both have to keep it down. Don't feel insulted by Jayjg's tracing your other edits – while I haven't yet read your full edit history, judging by just what you've said around this article and the ones immediately linked in from here, it seems you are frustrated with what you perceive as a pro-Israeli WP bias, but this seems to result in extremely POV and sometimes insulting remarks (to my personal perception, and I don't feel any animousity towards anybody who keeps contributing and doesn't just troll). It is no surprise that, having seen such remarks, other editors that want to achieve NPOV, will re-trace your history of edits (and Jayjg's as well, and mine, and whoever else's). Try not to take it as if it were in the real world, where a detective is spying on every part of your private life – WP is inherently fully open, there is no private life here, and you don't own anything but the "deltas" on the history lists, as you certainly understand. Instead of taking somebody tracing your edits personally, try to reform – for a good start, how about going over this page and replacing your own POV remarks with NPOV ones, and maybe even crossing out or removing some of the things you said here? You have just addressed the open source nature of the Wiki, having others tracing your edits is part of the game you have to accept to play. And if you reformulate stronger expressions, remove them, or even ask someone's pardon. Don't start right with the ones you had addressed to Jayjg, try working on a couple of others. This is just a suggestion – if I were you, I'd feel much better repairing the damage done by the strong emotions and unjust (in many editors' eyes) labels stuck; the reason is that in real life I have gotten into similar situations that you seem to have gotten yourself into here, and repairing the damage was always the key to the cure. If right now you feel you can't do it w/o getting angry or stressed, just relax and get to a completely different topic (my original "Relax" advice at the top of the talk still applies – you've got several more days to think things over...) If you feel the topic is too hot for you, well, you've said what you've said here and you are ready to accept the vote outcome, so maybe just ignore the article until the vote is over, and work on the other issues meanwhile... Good luck – I'm off to get some sleep... BACbKA 22:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

re:Problem with an administrator

Alberuni, I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you regarding the message you left on my talk page. I've recently started a new full-time job and have been extremely busy. Anyway, I've written a fairly lengthy response back on my talk page at User talk:Benc#Problem with an administrator. I hope my suggestions there are beneficial for you as you seek to resolve your difficulties with other editors. Regards, • Benc • 01:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The three revert rule

Alberuni hi. I seemed to notice that you returned the "propaganda" category to Hasbara a lot in the last 24 hours. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Three revert rule. The best course of action in your case, if you see you might be violating the rule, is to ask another user (HistoryBuffEr?) to do the reverts for you, since violating the three-revert rule will not look good on your RfC. Alternatively you might want to let it go for a day. Gadykozma 13:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni hi. I think you should understand that Wikipedia norms (including the three revert rule) are not a rigid legal system but more a flexible system of guidelines that allow your peers to judge your good intentions. Therefore I would suggest that you do not blame others (even if you believe you are right) of breaking this or that policy. This is pointless since their actions will not be judged formally but rather after weighting in all kinds of external factors. Specifically, it was you who did the first edit on Al Mezan after 4 days of peace, therefore it is likely that you will be blamed for edit warring. Please try and reach a consensus with Jayjg. That's the Wiki way. Gadykozma 19:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

thanks for staying cooler recently

Hi Alberuni, I am following your talks and edits in several articles recently (hopefully you no longer consider such practice as "stalking" :-) ), as well as lurking on the RfC. It seems to me that the RfC and other attempts has already had a positive effect on you, as the sample of your recent comments on the discussion pages leaves me under impression that you're now staying cooler even in the discussions about controversial close to your heart. Keep going that way (and please don't disappoint me even if you feel you are being provoked – WP is no place for eye-for-eye). BACbKA 19:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I learned alot from objective people's comments and won't let the bias and incitement of others bother me. I don't mind people reading my edit history. I do mind people pushing their POV onto Wikipedia pages and who intentionally seek out and revert all my edits without explanation or discussion just in a campaign of political censorship and intimifdation. "It should be noted that some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without committing such a breach themselves." Wikipedia:Civility Perhaps you should also leave your suggestions at the User talk page of the editor who still hasn't learned this lesson. Alberuni 19:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm watching others' behaviour in the said disputes as well. I agree with the quote from the civility policy, but I hope you understand it doesn't give the one who is provoked into breaking civility an excuse to do so, it only implies that the one who provokes is engaged in bad behaviour as well.
Please note the 3 revert rule comments above, they are to the point, and probably should be followed. It would give you much more legitimacy to revert with a check-in comment in a couple of days saying smth like "no factual objections have been raised, as confirmed by the majority on the discussion page" rather than just hastily re-doing it your way, even if in the long run your version is perceived more NPOV. (If you are emotionally attached to the article revision you've made, it's understandable, but really, the article doesn't suffer physically while it temporarily stays in a revision that is POV and biased against your beliefs :-) just detach yourself from it, and try to engage in a substantiating dispute on the talk page. If your opponents keep reverting without responding, you can surely revert again, and if an edit war ensues, call in an admin for a protection until the consensus on the talk page is reached. BACbKA 20:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey, that's exactly what I'm fighting too! We should work together on this, what do you say? Jayjg 20:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can I take it as a truce proposal? ;-) BACbKA 20:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what I've been hoping for all along. Jayjg 20:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am willing to work with any editor who is honest and diligent about maintaining NPOV. You have shown in your edits that you are able to compromise when confronted with factual evidence even if it contradicts your opinions and I think you will agree that the same can be said for me. I will refrain from expressing my opinions in an uncivil way on Talk pages and hope that you will avoid intentionally antagonizing me or others. If we are both honest and diligent about our work on Wikipedia and discuss differences of opinion there should be no reason for conflict. Alberuni 20:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I would also strongly recommend not labelling the edits of other editors either; for example, describing other people's edits as "Zionist hasbara efforts" or similar wording is antagonistic and not conducive to collegial editing, even if you haven't specifically made any ad hominem comments. And it would be extremely useful and show good faith if you could help reign in or at least NPOV HistoryBuffEr's highly POV edits; while you have been able to add a fair bit to Wikipedia, I don't think one could make a similar claim for HistoryBuffEr, and his edits just inflame the pages. Jayjg 07:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't be a hypocrite. You have labelled edits and a Talk page section "Anti-Israel propaganda efforts are continuing" on Talk:Propaganda. If you are going to preach about rules to others you should follow them yourself first. Alberuni 14:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Um, who created the original label for that section (before I modified it), and what was it? I was trying to show you the effect of this kind of labelling; it obviously made an impression on you. Jayjg 19:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, according to you, when you are antagonistic it is justified because you are retaliating against me but when if I retaliate against your provocations, I am violating Wikipedia policies. Like I said, please don't be a hypocrite. It will go a long way to improving the collegiality of editing if you admit when you are wrong and even offer an apology, as I have. I have never seen you do that. Alberuni 20:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, you titled the section "Israeli propaganda efforts, hasbara are continuing". You have continually created descriptions and Talk: comments with these kinds of description, even after toning down your ad hominem comments. I made one change of your title, to show you why these descriptions are objectionable, and now you focus on this one edit, rather than the dozens of times you have did this leading up to my edit. My "provocations" have been removing or re-stating your POV edits to Wikipedia articles, something that, in fact, is my duty as a Wikipedia editor. I have not removed any of your NPOV edits, as the edit history continually shows. The fact that you still view NPOVing your article modifications as "provocations" is rather dismaying. More dismaying is that you equate my NPOVing your edits with your making ad hominem comments, violating Wikiquette, and making inflammatory edit descriptions. If you make a POV edit to an article and I NPOV it or remove it, it is neither a "provocation", nor does quid pro quo demand that you get to both re-insert it and make inflammatory comments about the edit and make ad hominem comments as well. And modifying one inflammatory comment of yours in similar fashion does not justify your making dozens, perhaps hundreds of inflammatory and ad hominem statements leading up to that one change. I really want to work with you, Alberuni, not against you, and I feel you're capable of adding a great deal to Wikipedia. I'm giving you honest advice as to what will make that possible, with me, or with any other editor, and it's the opposite of inflammatory edit comments. Jayjg 21:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I wrote above, "I am willing to work with any editor who is honest and diligent about maintaining NPOV." I am afraid that in your edits you continue to push your POV in a very aggressive manner, ignoring Talk discussions and citations with evidence contradicting your personal opinions, even when that evidence has been provided by you! See Hasbara and Propaganda history and Talk pages for numerous examples. It is my duty as an editor to correct your innacurate and POV edits and I will continue to do so. You claim to be seeking an NPOV balance but your history shows this is false. I believe that you are aware that many of your pro-Israeli pro-Zionist edits are very POV but you pretend they are NPOV. I do think you know the difference in most cases. In some cases, I think you sincerely believe that a pro-Israeli POV is NPOV. In other words, you can't separate your personal opinions from facts. Furthermore, before you accuse me or others of being antagonistic in edit summaries, you should make sure that you are not doing the same thing. When your errors or hypocrisy are pointed out, the appropriate response is acknowledgement and, perhaps, if you are a confident man with some degree of honor, you could make an apology. THEN an offer to work together collegially will be more likely to be accepted because your ability to admit errors and moderate your behavior will be appreciated. To stubbornly never admit errors, to continue to aggressively push your POV agenda, to make excuses blaming others to justify your misconduct while criticizing those others for conducting themselves the same way you do, will not encourage editors to assume your good faith nor will anyone want to work with you. Alberuni 21:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your assessment of me is exactly my assessment of you. In your edits you continue to push your POV in a very aggressive manner, ignoring Talk discussions and citations with evidence contradicting your personal opinions; see Hasbara and Propaganda and Sabra and Shatila Massacre history for numerous examples. It is my duty as an editor to correct your innacurate and POV edits and I will continue to do so. You claim to be seeking an NPOV balance but your history shows this is false. I believe that you are aware that many of your anti-Israeli anti-Zionist edits are very POV but you pretend they are NPOV. I do think you know the difference in most cases. In some cases, I think you sincerely believe that an anti-Israeli POV is NPOV. In other words, you can't separate your personal opinions from facts. Furthermore, before you accuse me or others of being antagonistic in edit summaries, you should make sure that you have not done the same thing a hundred times over. When your errors or hypocrisy are pointed out, the appropriate response is acknowledgement and, perhaps, if you are a confident man with some degree of honor, you could make an apology. THEN an offer to work together collegially will be more likely to be accepted because your ability to admit errors and moderate your behavior will be appreciated. To stubbornly never admit errors, or to insist that any blame accrues to me because of my "provocations", to hypocritically try to equate one mildly antagonistic edit statement with dozens of highly antagonistic edits (even going so far as to accuse me of psychological problems and refer to my father, of all people), to continue to aggressively push your POV agenda, to make excuses blaming others to justify your misconduct while criticizing those others for conducting themselves the same way you do, will not encourage editors to assume your good faith nor will anyone want to work with you. Jayjg
Turnspeak is beneath you. And I did apologize on the RfC page. I will apologize here again for previously using uncivil language in frustration. I have refrained from doing it again. I don't push an anti-Israeli POV, I simply reject pro-Israeli texts and POV edits that are being passed off as NPOV. Despite my mistrust of your motives and your history, I will assume good faith and will try to work with you, if necessary. Alberuni 21:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I used Turnspeak to make you understand that I honestly believe every charge you have made against me applies to you, and others besides (as listed above). That said, I apologize for replacing your inflammatory section description with a similarly inflammatory description. And, like you, despite my mistrust of your motives and your history, I will assume good faith and will try to work with you, whenever we are editing the same articles. Jayjg 22:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg finds that concept difficult to understand. - Xed 15:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Xed, more evidence for the mediation. Jayjg 19:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Please desist from posting articles taken wholesale from other websites. It puts Wikipedia at risk and demeans the efforts of those who write original text. You might find it useful to review the copyright FAQ and copyright issues pages. If you believe you have permission to post the text that was removed from the pages you created, please follow the procedure in the instructions that has replaced those pages.

Please accept that my removal of two of your pages has nothing to do with their subject matter or with you -- I've also caught Project Liberty Ship today. Wikipedia really must toe the line on copyright issues. Please consider contributing original articles on the topics that were removed. --Kbh3rd 02:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The posted articles were not "taken wholesale" from other websites. They were rewritten using original words, phrases and ideas and if text was quoted, the quoted text was enclosed in quotation marks. Alberuni 02:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very minor non-political editing quibble

Hiya! I notice in editing Beit Hanoun, you changed

[[Beit Hanoun]]

to

'''Beit Hanoun'''

But I do believe the standard here is the former. Watch what happens here: User talk:Alberuni. See, bold instead of a link on its own page. It's a neat trick, albeit a piece of syntactic sugar. Anyway, you can save yourself a few keystrokes and not bother changing those when you encounter them. --jpgordon {gab} 05:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still learning. Alberuni 05:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing. When answering messages here on your talk page, the practice around here seems to be to use the talk page of the person you're talking with (so that they get the "you have new messages" message.) I know it's odd -- you get these peculiar disjointed discussions -- but it does appear to be how it's done. (I'm new too -- just started here beginning of September. And am hooked.) --jpgordon {gab} 15:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding

Hi Alberuni, I feel I must apoligize for not responding to your request for assistance over the conflict you mentioned. I've been on a sort of impromptu wikivacation, and didn't find your message until just recently. Am I correct in assuming (judging from the above discussion) that you and Jayjg have assumed good faith and have averted catastrophe? If I am mistaken, or if there is anything else I can help with, I'll be back at WP (for the time being), so feel free to ask. T.P.K. 11:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who you think I am and who I really am

Alberuni,

It's funny that you should suspect me of being a Jew because I want to restore some balance to the Qur'an part of the Islam article. I'm as far from being a Zionist as you can get. I usually describe myself as an "ecumenical Bundist". Bundists were Jews who thought Zionism was a dreadful mistake. I'm a Buddhist who thinks that ALL nationalism, Jewish, Arab, American, German, whatever, is a dreadful mistake. I'm putting this on your personal page rather than on the Talk:Islam page because it's really more of an aside. Perhaps it will shake up your worldview a bit <grin>. Zora 06:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for the support. It's frustrating when he reverts perfectly neutral facts and then accuses us of POV.. --style 02:09, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

You've made your point

You've proved your point about Jayjg's insertion of opinions from Likudnik propaganda sites into articles on humanitarian organizations. Having done so, you should consider stopping. It would be more helpful to use the point you've established to address the editing of the articles that you really care about; for example, you could handle the NGO Monitor attacks by collating them in the NGO Monitor article, and you might handle the IDF's self-exculpation on Muhammad al-Durrah by citing reports that reached a different conclusion. Your current campaign is only going to turn people against you; it's already irked at least one user who was previously sympathetic, and continuing will probably have similar effects. —No-One Jones (m) 04:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zionist Revisionism

Currently on VfD. As you are the original author, I'd suggest you vote. By the way, I voted to keep, though your article has too much POV in it. Also, did you do some sort of copy and paste move from Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict? If so, wouldn't that be a better title for the article anyway (I notice that someone has put a VFD tag on this also. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi Alberuni - if you want to save the Zionist revisionism article, a reference to the following book might be helpful. [2][3] - pir 15:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Zionist Revisionism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial

To purge your page to see what others have added, click here

What we have here is a very complicated situation. There appears to have been a copy and paste move done between Zionist Revisionism and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I am quite happy to merge the two and setup a redirect, however because Zionist Revisionism is on VfD at the moment I don't want to do anything like this right at this moment. Also, it is further complicated by the fact that there is another article called Israeli-Palestinian history denial, that's almost exactly the same as the other two. I'm sending a message to all participants so far, requesting their comments on what they think we should do. My own preference is to merge into a more appropriately named article, something like Historical perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians (as that's what this is all about), but I'm flexible. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Ta bu shi da yu, Zionist Revisionism was the original article. I had moved it to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict in an attempt to NPOV it, but Alberuni undid the changes and the move, without redirecting the other article. I have since redirected the 2nd article to another page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Good idea, or you could just merge all three into Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. As long as you merge information rather than deleting it, as some have a habit of doing. Don't worry about the VfD entry for Zionist Revisionism; it is invalid. Josiah has, yet again, failed to provide valid reasons for the listing. --style 13:01, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
    • Yet again? You obviously don't watch anything I actually do, as 1) That was the first page I had ever put up for deletion - the fact that I had done it wrong should be proof of that, and 2) I and others listed perfectly good reason on the VfD page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would avoid POV titles that are bound to be challenged. As for the VfD entry, it is perfectly valid to list the article for VfD, and the entry will be dealt with via the usual VfD process. Jayjg 15:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I would suggest not to use the word "revisionism" in the title at all. It it nothing but an allusion to historical revisionism (a.k.a. Holocaust denial). Since none of the holders of these views on either side consider their views "revisionism", it would be better if the title did not contain this word. Finally, the potential for confusion with te unrelated Revisionist Zionism is enormous. More seriously, I also cannot see how any such page would contain anything but POV fights. Is that really what we need? Does it make sense to keep a list of historical points were Alberuni disagrees with Jayjg? Is that encyclopedic? Gadykozma 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • You have neatly summarized exactly what is wrong with the word "Revisionism", thank you. Jayjg 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You notorious thought criminal, you!

Only kidding :) I was thinking: the article's title seems a little POV. I realise you have strong views on the matter, but would it hurt to change the title to something different in order to reduce the emotional baggage that comes with "Zionist Revisionism"? I figure your a reasonable man and the original author, so I'd appreciate some feedback on this. Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the term "Zionist Revisionism" as it is too easy to confuse with Revisionist Zionism ie Jabotinsky's ideology. GCarty 15:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point. What do you suggest? Zionist historical revisionism? --Alberuni 16:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm ignorant about this, so forgive me if I don't understand something: but I was asked what Zionism meant. Does the article only refer to Zionists? Could we change it from Zionism to something else? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War

If you're wonder where this is, it's moved to wikisource. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

comments on Israel Shahak

Hi Alberuni,

I found your recent comments on talk:Israel Shahak to be considerably less than helpful at building the page. By adding comments that are not directly related to improving the page, you decrease the signal for everybody and make it more difficult to achieve our common goal: building the best free encyclopedia in the world. DanKeshet 18:55, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

More specifically: the purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. If you have opinions about other's contributions, they belong there. If you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there--or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia prospers on people working together toward improving articles. Anything else--especially attacks directed specifically at users--detracts from the wonderful thing that we are creating here. DanKeshet 19:38, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

"One time, Ali was fighting the champion of the opposing army. He pushed his opponent on the ground, jumped on his chest — and lifted his sword to finish the opponent. At that point — with both armies watching in great suspense — the opponent, lying on the ground with Ali on his chest, spat on Ali’s face. The Muslim army got very tense when this occurred. It was a tribal society dominated by notions of revenge and honour. So when the victor got up, everybody expected him to be even more vicious and brutal to the defeated. But the army saw an amazing sight. Ali stood up and suddenly walked away. The generals gathered around and asked him, “Why did you just walk away? If you knocked down your opponent, why didn’t you finish him?” Ali replied, “That man was not my personal enemy. I was fighting in the name of God. But when he spat on me, he angered me and he became my personal enemy. If I had killed him then, I would have killed him in anger, not for the sake of God.”"[4] - Mustafaa 18:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violence against Palestinian children article

This page does not currently have consensus for delete, but a strong plurality exists to merge the content. Please discuss possible destination articles at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Israeli violence against Palestinian children. Cool Hand Luke 07:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lightening the gloom

(cur) (last) 12:27, Nov 8, 2004 Alberuni (When Ed Poor diagrees with you, maybe you should reassess your POV)

LOL, Al, LOL! --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Israel

In response to your comment on my page where you state: "There's nothing wrong with being anti-Israel", I would soundly disagree.

If you are openly anti-something, I do not believe you can write a non-biased article which pertains to that topic. Oberiko 19:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can be openly anti-Israel on Talk pages and still write NPOV articles. Would you claim that someone who is openly pro-Israel cannot write an unbiased article? Anyway, NPOV is about presenting alternative points of view. Everyone recognizes that complete objectivity is impossible. Read Wikipedia:NPOV. What you are actually doing is censoring editors for holding political points of view with which you disagree - because of your own POV. Hence, a witch hunt. --Alberuni 19:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My POV? And what would that be? You've already decided, quite openly, that Israel is "wrong" in the current political situations. How could you write a fair, NPOV article with a mindframe like that? NPOV is about neutrality, and, if especially controverisal, both sides being presented equally under so-labelled headings. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not propoganistic.
And yes, I would say that someone who is openly pro-Israel likely also couldn't write a fair article on the situation either. I know that complete NPOV is impossible, but there are certainly larger margins then others.
One more question though. How does pointing out an open bias of yours make this a witch-hunt? Oberiko 19:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but I couldn't disagree more. I am probably at least as much "pro-Israel" as Alberuni is "anti-Israel". Yet I trust him to follow the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. It doesn't make sense to require an editor to be neutral about an issue, in order to write a balanced article which presents multiple points of view fairly. All it takes is an awareness that one's own views are not shared by others, and there's no doubt in my mind that Alberuni has this awareness.
To take another example, I am probably the foremost opponent of the "gay rights" point of view at Wikipedia, because my church flatly opposes homosexuality. Yet many of my contributions on the topic have been so well-written that they've remained essentially unaltered for over 2 years. If I was poisoning the articles with my biases, surely someone would have complained - or corrected the articles - by now.
It really is possible to write an article that does not take sides even when you yourself support one side. Try it, and see! --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Israel Shahak

See my comments on Talk:Dore Gold. You were right about the Radio Islam passage on the Shahak page. I think it needs to be moved to the Critics section and rewritten for clarity. If we hold ourselves and other editors to higher standards, and adhere to policy, we can really improve these articles. Thanks again for pointing that edit out. It might help in the future, if you continue to give specific examples, so that I can actually have a look-see at what you are talking about. On Talk:Israel Shahak I've proposed to remove the passage in question until we can agree. I think I see your point regarding "well-poisoning smears" on the Israel Shahak page. Now, since I've proposed it's removal, please explain to me what you were talking about in regards to your other claim, that the very mention of Dore Gold, the publisher of NGO Monitor, should not be mentioned on the pages containing NGO Monitor smears of Palestinian groups. Now, let's have a look at that, shall we? Post the links to those edits so I can examine those as well. If we work together, instead of against each other, we can get more done. Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 11:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I quoted you at Wikipedia:cooperation, V. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Munich Massacre

As you know, I have attempted a compromise version of Munich Massacre that incorporates the best parts of both versions. Improvements are welcome, but I have humbly asked all involved that they only change specific parts that they feel are problematic, and not do a blanket revert. I left a message like this on everyone's talk page that had been active in the previous edit war, and all agreed to refrain from reverting for a while so as to let things cool off a bit. I must have accidently left you off the list, and I apologize. So I'm asking now: please don't start up a revert war here. I know you have strong opinions, and I agree with you on some of them. But these revert wars really are harming Wikipedia. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help) 03:35, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Uruguayan Jews

Per your query, there are 20,000 - 25,000 Jews in Uruguay it seems. Jewbacca 05:48, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you... sort of

I am going to have to side with you on the argument over Arafat knowing the intentions of the Zionists. The name "Zionist" tells their intentions: they want to establish "Zion". However, Alberuni, you shouldn't turn a debate over writing an encyclopedia article into a personal attack. This isn't an AOL chatroom. Attacking people won't help your cause. It will just alienate people even more. I understand that the condition over there is very harsh, and that the radical factions of Zionism have been treating your people unjustly, but using an encyclopedia article to call someone a "Zionist Troll" will only make things worse. You can be stronger than that. Surly you must recognize though, that your side isn't perfect, either. If the Palestinians were in power, who is to say that they wouldn't treat the Israelis even worse than the Israelis are treating you?--NoPetrol 07:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)--NoPetrol 07:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A hint

No point speculating as to Jay's "mentality". We all know he's pro-Israel. The only thing relevant about a contributor is how well he can add accurate and unbiased information to the articles. Motives and points of view of contributors are irrelevant.

See Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:50, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni - you should know of this

Alberuni, some <insert vulgar noun> decided to make a page mocking you. See An editorial by Alberuni, I would VfD it, but I don't know how to do them correctly. (as evidenced by my attempts to VfD Zionist Revisionism, which jayjg fixed for me)--Josiah 00:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uruguay

Who do you think is the mystery Uruguay sockpuppet? see Talk:Israeli_violence_against_Palestinian_children. - Xed 04:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert war on Arab-Israeli conflict

Please stop this. I've placed a message on Jayjg's talk page also. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where is the RFC on this matter? I'll look into what needs to be done here. Please try to remember I still no little about the whole issue. Perhaps I'm lazy, but maybe an outside reviewer might help here. Perhaps you could state your case to me again, keeping in mind I know nothing of this issue? Maybe we can come to some sort of compromise. At the very least we can try. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Alberuni. I will have a read. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've carefully read what you wrote, and I find it extremely interesting. Ironically, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your views. I sometimes wonder why the U.S. let's Israel get away with some of the things it gets away with... that said I wonder when this conflict will cease (I don't think it will in my lifetime) as I beleive both sides are equally to blame! You'll have to note I come from a Christian background, so I'm declaring my potential biases right here so you'll understand where I'm coming from.
I think, however, that if you want to keep the text for the U.S. 9/11 attacks, you're going to have to do more to convince people (including myself). Firstly, I agree with Jayjg's statement that "attacks on the U.S. are not attacks on Israel, nor part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, since Israel is not a proxy for the U.S., nor is the U.S. a "Zionist Occupied Government" proxy of Israel"". Whether the Sept. 11 attacks were directed against the U.S. or against Israel is a matter for debate. Secondly, I beleive you must have gotten your information from somewhere. You seem pretty intelligent, so I'm guessing you are well read up on this subject (better read than me anyway, I'll bet). Perhaps if you could point us to some external sources, we would be able to include your information. Heck, we could put it into another section and give a brief description of the views of others. That way it won't be original research, it will be compromising yet not in a way that you have concede anything on your information.
Anyway, I'm trying to come to a solution here. reverting certainly isn't going to work, and will only lead to rancour and 1) the page being blocked, or 2) either you, Jayjg (or both of you!) getting blocked for editing for a while! I don't want to see these things happen as I don't feel it's terribly productive or nice. Anyway, let me know your thoughts. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Somewhat related to this debate is a recent interview with the CIA agent who headed the hunt for Osama Bin Laden [5]. From the article:
Al-Qaeda's hostility stemmed from US government's "unqualified support for Israel" and desire "to manipulate the price of oil" in favour of Western consumers, he said. ... In his view, "there should be a debate over support for Israel"
This should put into context Jayjg assertions that "attacks on the U.S. are not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, since Israel is not a proxy for the U.S."-Xed 13:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Ol' Dirty Bastard

VH1 confirms 13 children. You are correct. I was simply using what was placed there before. Alkivar 01:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah it could be added in that form, that passes the buck so to speak for the confirmation on to the newspaper. Although it still smacks of POV. Alkivar 06:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hey dude, I've just read all the controversy under Talk:Jews Against the Occupation, and I wanted to say good for you! Keep doing what you're doing. I wish I had as much patience as you do to put up with Zionist obscurantism; as it is, I just stay out of the Middle East articles altogether! I'll just remain in the calmer waters of the French Revolution. ;-) Best, QuartierLatin1968 05:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat and Munich

Alberuni, to keep on reverting the Black September article is senseless, my friend. Why do you want to keep Abu Iyad's quote out of it? He's not exactly what anyone could call an Israeli or "Zionist" source. I also don't see why you're so keen to ensure that Arafat is not blamed for Munich. Abu Daoud himself said that Munich is not something the PLO would do nowadays, but times were different back then. I believe Arafat would have said the same thing if he'd have been honest. I don't understand why you're so keen to airbrush this out of the PLO's history. Slim 07:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't take the Abu Iyad quote from Palestinefacts.org or any website. I took it from his book Stateless, p 146-7. There's also a well-known quote in an Egyptian newspaper in 1972 from a Black September operative who took part in the planned assassination of Hussein. He said: "We all belonged to Fatah. No one cuts himself off from his mother." Slim 08:01, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

I have requested Arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Alberuni--Josiah 16:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

This may be difficult for you to believe, but I consider myself one of your supporters. If you change your behavior now, I will not contribute to your arbitration case. If you continue to wage revert wars and personal attacks against editors, I will have no choice. It is your decision. I look forward to working with you on articles in the future. --Viriditas 23:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A friendly warning

You have to cease your rampage of ad hominem attacks and revert wars. This is an encyclopedia project built on collaboration, not a hate forum. You are yet to learn to live with facts that differ from your opinion. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jihad and User:Pename

Please stop being baited by this user. I can't stand watching them do this to you. His edits are POV, and I'm watching them carefully. Please, just address them, modify them constructively and they'll either calm down and add information with more care, or they will eventually be hoist on their own petard.

By the way, I'm saying this not because I'm a Muslim or even agree with most things to do with Islam, I'd saying it because I get annoyed when people like Pename make silly statements like calling you a liar, etc. Please, don't stoop to this new users' level. If they get too much, and they refuse to discuss changes on the talk page and start reverting file an RFC on the page, then request arbitration if things continue getting bad.

Ta bu shi da yu 05:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sage words, Ta bu shi da uy.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Quran Article

you said on Talk:Islam#Removed_Jihad_reference_in_Qur.27an_section I don't dare ask what kind of magazine that was. The Atlantic is a well respected widely read magazine published in the United States....not as widely read as Sports Illustrated, but that should not be surprising. You might enjoy reading some of the articles. Lance6Wins 21:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pename personal attacks

As Pename has been attacking both yourself, myself, OneGuy and RickK, I was wondering if you would like to certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pename? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islam

I was not aware of Lance6wins' history of partisan disputes, and my support for deletion of the passage in question was based entirely on my judgement of the merit of that passage. dab 19:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which indeed is the only valid basis for deciding the issue: Let each passage stand or be deleted upon its own merits. Lance6Wins 20:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • He is banned from articles dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Maybe Islam should be included in that category.
    • — I hardly think so. We might as well declare Human, human evolution and hatred as belonging to that category. I just think the passage in question was badly phrased, and if you stay level-headed, you are welcome to sort it out on Talk. dab 09:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni deleting all criticism of Muhammad

Look, Alberuni, I sympathise with your intentions, and I've had to fight ignorant pro-Zionist or anti-Muslim editors before. But the fact is that you simply don't engage your opponents most of the time, and add comments guaranteed to fan edit wars. I can understand you getting into edit wars with bigots like "Pename" or some others that I won't name just yet, but it is entirely possible to calmly and rationally discuss edits with people like Jayjg or Zora, even when their POV is diametrically opposed to yours or mine, and it is your own highly emotional editing methods that seem to be the main cause of those edit wars' continuation. - Mustafaa 03:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

168.209.97.34

I submitted an arbitration on this guy here. Let's see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests_for_Arbitration

OneGuy 09:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cabal

You might be interested in Arbitration request - CheeseDreams vs. a cabal of "fundamentalists"

CheeseDreams 02:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you. --Viriditas 07:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three revert rule

Please be aware (if you aren't already) that this rule has become enforceable by 24-hour blocks. You are perilously closing to violating it on Yasser Arafat, and I'd hate to see you get blocked. —No-One Jones 04:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Viriditas 09:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocked

You are blocked from editing for 24 hours because you violated the 3 revert rule in the article Yasser Arafat. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies on the occasion of your blocking. Get well soon Nasrallah 01:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I appreciate your attempts to make reasonable edits to hasbara, BACbKA.

Your last post on Talk:Hasbara#Hasbara is propaganda went like this:

It's good to see that even an Israeli Zionist can be sensible. I appreciate your attempts to make reasonable edits to hasbara, BACbKA. The narrow-minded Zionist bigots that think they own Wikipedia refuse to consider reasonable edits like this - unless an Israeli makes them. --Alberuni 16:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am happy that you acknowledge my efforts to achieve an NPOV wording, but I would prefer it in less insulting language next time, even if the insults bulk (The narrow-minded Zionist bigots that think they own Wikipedia and the Hypocrites at the check-in comment) are not directed at myself. In other words, if you wanted to show your appreciation, you should have probably said ONLY the 2nd sentence (I appreciate...). Really, when you say even an Israeli Zionist can be sensible, doesn't it contradict your own observation above on that page:

It is not accurate to divide links into anti-Israel and pro-Israel

It's a sick worldview that perpetuates an us vs. them identity of perpetual defensiveness, aggression, and self-victimization. Alberuni 05:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By using this wording (even...) relating to me you make me feel as if, in general, I am a part of an alien "them" camp for you that can't in general be sensible, kind of nullifying the effect of your second sentence, that you actually appreciate my attempts. Therefore, if your intent was to encourage me (which I wish to believe using the good faith assumption principle), it actually had an opposite effect — making me wish to stay away from this page for some longer period so that can get again fully detached from the stirred emotions (I can not allow myself edit controversial articles in a non-detached state of mind, because if I do, my edits are highly likely not to be NPOV!). I'll prefer to donate my free time on wikipedia to pages with less edit war flames while I lower my wikistress level.

I can only hope that my yesterday's attempt to step in with the tentative category inclusion concept and the paragraph rewrite suggestion would bring the Hasbara article two steps closer to consensus.

BTW, your "I am Alberuni" on the user page is not very informative. If you think nobody is interested in who you are, well, at least I am. Do you mind sharing a bit of information on your background, or maybe giving a link to your homepage? Of course, if you choose anonymity for some personal or security reasons, you need not elaborate, and everybody will understand. BACbKA 20:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004, ect.

These all appear to be lifted from rememberthesechildren.org. Also, it might be very useful for an encyclopedia to have links to news stories or something similar for each death—if you intend on re-writing. Cool Hand Luke 01:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addition of a few details does not make them any less of a copyright violation. You've copied the entries, descriptions, and format verbatim. In an unrelated matter, be advised of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Further reverts on Zionist revisionism may result in a 24 hour block. Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please explain why these are not copyright violations. As I said, adding a few extra details doesn't make it legitimate. Please rewrite these at "/temp" or explain why these are not copyright violations. Cool Hand Luke 06:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barghouti?

Re: Mustafa Barghouti/Barghouthi. How did you determine the correct spelling for this name? When I was doing the research for the article, I found both versions to be equally common on Google, but "Barghouthi" was used in most places on the Palestine Monitor website, which is essentially run by Barghouthi, so I went with that. - Nat Krause 04:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Admitted bias" against you. Poppycock.

Firstly, it's time for you to explain why you reverted three times in that article and why you didn't make any effort to compromise. It appears that there is a bit of ambiguity in the policy. Also, admins get some leeway in blocking decisions. So tough. You clearly went outside the spirit of the law in regards to reverting, and you'll not get an apology from me on this one. In fact, I'd welcome you to take this RFC or to ArbCom, because then we'd both see who people see to be in the right and who would be in the wrong. Also, my "admitted bias" (aparently from my edit summary at [6]) you've made up is complete bullshit, and you know it. I might disagree with you on many issues, but I also disagree with others, like Jayjg. They don't feel the urge to tell me about my "admitted bias". I am most definitely allowed to disagree with you. This has never been a crime, and I'd advise you to act more sensibly, and to also stop making personal and inflamatory comments. So pull your head in and try to come to compromises. Do not revert like you have been ever again. Understood? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure. You might also want to read no personal attacks (calling me a "little boy" is a personal attack, also saying that I have a Napoleonic complex and suggesting I expand the article stub is also a personal attack), along with NPOV. You might also want to do more edits that try to strike a consensus. You must also justify massive edits. if I can be bothered I'll be adding your reversions and personal attack to your arbcom case. Also: I've been told about you by a few editor and on how they refuse to edit articles that you contribute to. I'm not suggesting this time: I'm telling you: you need to change the way you edit. Now. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Further: "Viriditas enlisted you so that he and Jayjg and a sock puppet could impose their Zionist bias on Wikipedia. Proud of yourself being used like that?" Viriditas did not "enlist" me. Neither did Jayjg. Your "Proud of yourself being used like that" I count as a personal attack, do it again and I file an RFC. You must justify major edits. Who the hell do you think you are? the only editor whose opinion counts on Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether I blocked you inappropriately is debatable. You did revert 4 times. This was done deliberately. You've also said you don't have to explain your edits. The irony of your comments are that I could have chosen to lock the page straight away (which you would have caused by reverting a fourth time) but that would have disrupted the page: as you've already stated. You were out by 5 minutes, so I used my discretion and blocked you for 24 hours. So darned tootin right I won't be apologising. And I guess you won't be reverting so quickly in future, will you now? So my question stands: Who the hell do you think you are reverting pages and making major changes without discussion? As for admitting to deliberate bias, I reverted back to your edits on the Jihad article and I didn't see any complaints of bias against the other user when I did this. And you conviniently miss the fact that I reverted Jayjg back to your changes in the edit you are complaining about. Funny how that shows my "bias".

You still haven't addressed your personal attacks, and you also show no sign of apologising. Funny how things look so much different when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Viriditas | Talk 11:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies on the occasion of your blocking. Get well soon Nasrallah 20:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question

Is Alberuni a woman?

Hi Alberuni

Assallam-O-Allaikum,

greetings from Paksitan how can I talk with you privately (not used this feature on wikipedia that much :-( please contact soon. take care allah hafiz

Zain 01:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alberuni/Proposed_decision:

1) Alberuni is banned from editing articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pending resolution of this matter. (Based on POV editing, edit warring, violations of the 3 revert rule, and personal attacks.)

Note that this applies to all sock puppets as well. - David Gerard 15:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbitration Committee has ruled on your case. Effective January 10, 2005, you are to be blocked for a period of one year ending on January 10, 2006. You are also henceforth subject to personal attack parole and a requirement to discuss all reverts. Please see the case page for further details. -- Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Hi anas here, i oppose osama bin laden as well as US war policies

[user:Anazcp Anazcp]


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Block expired, so removed protection. --Improv 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)