User talk:MatthewAJYD/Archive 2

Sendare on Israel

Sorry about the intrusion, but I MUST barge in here. A 1998 article, which is based on certain rumors does not make any proof that Israel has been developing ethnic - specific biological weapons. While many news groups enjoy choosing Israel as the "big bad wolf", I tried to find more proof of this weapon, and I have found nothing. I have indeed looked around A LOT, and have found nothing to show me that Israel is developping this kind of insanely malicious weapon, so please, enlighten me, show me a real, in depth article about Israel's new fox-die weapon, and I'll start believing you. At this point, I choose to remain a bit zealous and claim that my country (that DOES educate its soldiers to think before they shoot, this coming from a soldier, who thought before he shot) will never sink so low. As for Israel's war criminality. While you may claim that it is in Israel's first directive to kill innocent people, and while I may claim otherwise, you may never know, unless you've spoken to the person that issued the attacks, or to the people that executed them. While, without any doubt, there was a lot of negligence in the attacks on Lebanon, Hizbollah had more than its fair share in the high death tolls of Lebanese civilians, and this is more than rumor, Hizbollah forced fleeing civilians to stay in villages, and therefore be used as 'media ammunition', to be fired from the gun that is international news groups, against Israel. I respect the fact that you attempt to be neutral, but even in your neutrality, you still seem to take on an attitude that claims that a giant doesn't get hurt when stabbed by a needle, and that Israel is an entity that knows only brute force, with little to no restraint. Israel has had its fair share of suffering, and the country's economy will take many many years to regenerate (not to mention the considerable death toll, injury toll, and overall damage that was done to the north). While I ask you of no sympathy, or empathy (I know many people cannot show empathy, let alone sympathy, to something that they strongly despise), I ask you to show a BIT of restraint, and not immedietely go making claims that Israel is the next Nazi Germany. Sendare

This is not based on 'rumours'. You need to do some research. The USA and Israel have been working on these types of weapons for decades. It actually began in the USA after they recovered Japanese scientific data that discussed how this may be possible. Israel is the most dangerous country on Earth because of strategic reasons and the government's unwillingness to make any real attempts at peace. They have been like this since the beginning because of one crazed faction within their founders, which has unfortunately gained the upper hand. Even though these are a minority in the Israeli society, they are the ones pulling the strings, just as how the war-mongers in the USA are but a minority. If you have not been able to find anything, you need to research more thoroughly, or improve your internet search methods. The thing is, when 'Israel' is doing these insane things, it is really a minority of maniacs within the Israeli government. But, because these people go unimpeded, they continue their actions. Most Israeli soldiers are almost civilians, and are only 'peace-keepers'. The groups that are sent to offensive missions are trained in the same way as American soldiers, using MKDELTA methods which causes them to fire on reflex, without thought. This is all publically admitted. It is particularly prevalent in the USA's military, and even in their police force. There is a waver that they are given after this training which states that if they accidentally kill someone, it can be attributed to the training, and therefore they are criminally exempt. It is the directive of the people who control the Mossad to work with the USA in total conquest of the Middle-East. This is their explicit goal, most of which can be found in English political papers in the United States. Hezbollah, by even IDF statistics, has only been responsible for about 1/30 the civilian casualties as the IDF. This is simply a fact. Yes, Hezbollah are militant vigilantes, and their military branch (a minority of members) are responsible for crimes that should be punished. However, military action in Lebanon is not justified, and from a military strategist's perspective, it is clear that Israel has territorial interests. Regardless of what Hezbollah supposedly did, Israel attacked Qana, where there were no Hezbollah rockets. How do you explain that? Also, they very early on attacked the International Airport at Beirut. This is clearly strategic, and related to invasion-tactics. It has nothing to do with Hezbollah. Israel has been a war-criminal state for more than 3 decades. There is no question about this. Most of the major politicians there are war-criminals. Sharon was, but even he was not so brash as to want to endanger his entire country by provoking a Third World War. Israelis may have suffered over the past decades, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the criminal actions of their government. The very fact that so many Israelis are so pro-government immediately demonstrates a tendency toward fascism. And fascist Israel is--very much so. The USA and Israel are both dominated by the same group of Americans/Israelis/Europeans who have only power in mind (just read the documents that PNAC has come out with). Even though both governments are willing to give their populations false impressions about 'heroism' and to sacrifice them for their agenda, the leaders themselves are extremely evil and dangerous people. It is sad that so many Americans and Israelis alike have died for such a greedy and maniacal cause--but the truth can often be qutie bitter. It's time for Israelis to 'bite the wormwood' as is the saying, and get rid of their corrupt leaders, replacing them with peace-oriented individuals. Since this is not currently happening, dissolution of the Israeli state by an international body sounds the best option. America, on the other hand, willl destroy itself the way it is going. Matthew A.J.י.B. 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the crimes of Israel and the United States in the past 2 decades can be attributed to, at the top levels, associates of the Mossad and the CIA, who have been working criminal agendas for a long time. At this point in history, they have near total control over those respective governments, and much influence in foreign governments as well (such as here in Canada, where CIA assets have recently taken control in the form of Stephen Harper's government). These organisations (CIA and Mossad) are totally devoted to the criminal agendas of their leaders, and have no boundaries or morals with regard to how far they will go to achieve these goals. Although the 'average' soldier may just believe he is defending his country, there are many soldiers who have been made into murder-machines by their training, as well as some bloodthirsty sadists. These people may be a minority, but the damage they can do when they are not punished for their misdeeds, is tremendous. The USA military has demonstrated this with their horrendous crimes against humanity in Iraq. Matthew A.J.י.B. 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you make claims, but you don't REALLY show anything to support them. Israel is the most dangerous country in the world, for instance, where is your proof on that? Has Israel ever directly preached for the destruction of another country? Has Israel EVER used its nuclear weapons, despite the fact that it had quite a few wars, with ranging risk factors and magnitude? Can you say Iran would act the same way? Or Pakistan? Or China? I think not. I still haven't found any proof about your ethnic specific weapons, it sounds exactly like a conspiracy theory made up by some anti-zionist group. As for your continuous notes about war crimes, I'm kind of curious how come you aren't preaching against the constant and never ending geneocide in places like Sudan, and other areas in central Africa. In those areas, the war crimes amount to much greater damage, and are with much more intent. And yet, you seem to stick by the fact that Israel is the greatest enemy to peace in the middle east (that claim alone is prepostrous, how can you say that a country causes more damage than terrorist groups, which form a controlling minority, and dictatorships that educate their children to desire the annhilation of anyone who isn't one of them. And this, my friend, is more than an opinion. Show me one Israeli leader, that has international reachings, that says "death to Iran, death to Muslims, death to etc etc".)

Also, it really does make me curious that you see the US and Israel as the number one potential catalysts for WWIII, however, you seem to ignore the fact that wars start for a reason, Israel and the US aren't fascist countries, neither of them are on a conquest mission, neither of them have captured new land in many years, and Israel has even given some land away, which was a very righteous thing to do. You say that the Mossad has influence upon the country, and yet I rarely hear about them in the news. "But Sendare," You may say, "That is what they want you to believe, that because you don't hear about them, they don't act," well, call me gullible, but I won't believe something that has no base. I'm sick of hearing about this "conquest in the middle east" nonsense, it doesn't make sense in any form of presentation. Seven million (Israel's entire population, elderly and youth included) CANNOT dominate 1 billion people, anyway you slice it, you just can't do it. Also, while Israel is strong, it's not strong enough to attack every single country around there, some of them have advanced armies thanks to Russia (which, I'm rather surprised you're ignoring, seeing as it seems to be selling its weapons to anyone that's willing to buy, terrorists included), and Israel can't win. the US is a different matter, but I'm sure that after what happened in Iraq, they won't be going on global conquest anytime soon.

I've had it up to my head with these global conquest theories, they're getting really old, REALLY fast.

Why did you not sign your post, O nationalistic fascist one? There is really no point in replying to such a garbled mass of baseless denunciations. You just hold your convictions based on your steadfast beliefs--without regard for reason or logic. Iran isn't even intent on developing nuclear weapons--there has been no proof to show that they have done anything but develop energy sources. China may be belligerent to thier own population, but for the time being they are rather isolationist and not as offensively dangerous to the world at large as Israel. Africa is the most corrupt place on Earth--it is run by American corporations and insane warlords. But why would I mention Africa when the discussion is about Israel? Israel is the source of most of the unrest in the Middle-East. Their Mossad, in cooperation with the CIA, put in most of the dictators that have existed there over the past 50 years. This is known and publically-released fact (from the CIA's records). Terrorists would hardly even exist if it weren't for Israel and the Untied States. Israel is a dictatorship--controlled by the Mossad. Does someone have to explicitely come out and act like Darth Vader in public for you to notice that they're dangerous? Honestly, you have a Hollywood view of reality. It's non-sense. You rarely hear about the Mossad in the news??? Gee!, I wonder why that is? You have just proven your stupidity ten thousand fold. Firstly, the United States and other elite-dominated nations have shown that 3,000 can dominate hundreds of millions. What do numberes have to do with it? Secondly, you seem to be conjuring up fictitious statements that I never said. The United States is cooperating with Israel to attack the Middle-East. The United States has already made public their intentions to invade Iran by next year. They are still very active in their global conquest. Furthermore, 90% of their conquests have been through economic manipulations (IMF/World Bank, etc.), and they have been up to that, in cooperation with Israel (Mossad) and European bankers, for decades. It is simply a fact that the Mossad has staged terror attacks in which Israelis were murdered. Furthermore the Israeli intelligence, Mossad, were the primary faction that carried out the 9/11 attacks, with help from the CIA. This alone is enough to justify the complete dissolution of the Israeli state, but there is so much more interference, so many intrigues, that the very fact that the country has not yet been wiped off the map says something about the stranglehold they have on world politics. Matthew A.J.י.B. 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign my post, besides, who else would respond other than me? By the way, I think that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, except that the brick wall would probably have some sort of logic. You can't base your opinion on statements, you have to use rationality, which you don't have when it comes to Israel. All I can say is, you lost me at "fascist". You lose by default, by taking the condescending naming road. I could respond to the rest of the paragraph, but what's the point? It's the same self righteous, blind, baseless chant. So, I'll see you later (hopefully not), maybe sometime in the future, when Israel decides to summon a fire spirit and burn up all the oil in the world, therefore making its alternative energy industry the most advanced and demanded in the world, so that its economy will grow, and grant it enough money to create a massive army that will capture Mercury, and then send a hundred gazillion mega ultra hydrogen bombs into the sun.Sendare

Nice to see that you cannot respond with any real arguments. You simply repeat some of my statements about you, in an attempt at the child's 'I am rubber you are glue' wordplay. Ah well--this discussion is clearly over, anyway. You are very steadfast and intent on keeping your dogmas and nationalistic sentiments held firm. Enjoy your thoughtless attachment to a destructive government. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings/notices from your talk page

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. LactoseTI 17:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Archiving"

You've archived only one section of your talk page: the section related to [[Talk: User: Matthew A.J.י.B/Archive 1|personal attacks]]. This isn't really archiving, as your talk page is fairly short, but it appears to be a third attempt[1][2][3] to hide the discussion. It does not reflect well on you when you do this. Even though it can be mildly embarrassing to be scolded on your own talk page (as I can vouch for by my own experience), it is just part of the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks. Ufwuct 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything better to do? Honestly. You think I'm trying to 'hide' the discussion, when the person I was discussing with quite clearly stated that they were not going to continue the discussion. The intention is to keep a closed discussion closed--to not encourage others to comment on a discussion in which the main participant besides myself is no longer a part. What, exactly, would my intentions be otherwise? Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are keeping the discussion open. Also, anyone who wants to comment has a right to do so. You've removed the discussion twice and archived once. I encourage you to make a little better effort at being civil, above what you believe you are already doing. You'd be surprised how these types of discussions evaporate quickly after the discussion become a little more civil.

And yes, I have better things to do. I would personally rather edit articles than comment on talk pages, but I will do either one if I believe it can help improve Wikipedia or create a more inviting environment at Wikipedia. Best of luck. Ufwuct 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If people honestly want to comment on some minor issue that has nothing to do with them, rather than on the more important matters, that says something about them. But, I shall keep such non-sense discussions up in the future, perhaps--on the Archive Page where they can be found. Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Premature Archiving

Please read [[4]], specifically Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings.. Rather than undo your archive, I'll just leave this information notice for your and others' convenience:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please leave it on your talk page for at least a few days before archiving. LactoseTI 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a non-sense rule to me. What is the point in keeping up information when a discussion is over? Furthermore, why are you so interested in my user-page? Not enough articles to edit? Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning for personal attacks

Your personal attacks displayed by [5] and [6] are innapropriate, and Wikipedia has strict rules against personal attacks. Please immediately refrain from attacking other users and remember to remain civil. If other users are causing you stress, it is usually best to leave them alone and remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Remember to focus on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you display a final warning for the SAME set of alleged 'personal attacks'? Is it just me, or is this non-sense? Yes, you simply can't do it. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't see that you archived the warnings. Nonetheless, it is extremely important to remain civil towards other editors in Wikipedia to promote a positive editing environment. The point remains that if people are being incivil to you, being incivil back towards them is never the thing to do - simply not responding to comments meant to anger you would be best. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have heard this argument about ignoring incendiary remarks from others. I do not personally agree with it, but I'll try and accomodate this rule since it is such a creed on Wikipedia. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For Gods (And Allah for politicaly correct morons) sake

I accept that you are entitled to your opinions but you are simply cloging up the talk pages of respectable artically with your far-left conspiracy noncence. You attack other users and accuse then of being Jewish agents. On second thoughts as you seem to be so anti-semitic your probably on the far-Right. Anyway will you pz stop. By the way i am not Isreali, Im not even Jewish. Im British, technically C of E but not practicing and if you must know my political views are centre-right. HOPEFULLY YOU UNDERSTANT THAT I AM NOT AN ISREALI AGENT BUT FOR SOME REASON I DOUGHT IT!!!--Jedi18 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Far left? Clearly you don't even know the meaning of 'Left' and 'Right'. Do I express any Communist sentiments or Communist/Anarchist sentiments? Have I even made a single remark in this direction? I don't accuse them of being Jewish agents. Anti-Semitic? This doesn't even deserve a reponse. Notice the character 'Yodh' in my username. Not even Jewish--exactly. You're just one of those Tony Blair-lovers without any reason about politics or reality, who goes around labelling others with non-sense accusations. You also need to get a spell-checker. Yeesh. Matthew A.J.י.B. 03:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right about the spell checker, but for your information in the UK center right means surporting a center right party e.g. Conservatives or UKIP, not Tony Blair who is centre left. Furthermore you have accused me and other users of being Jewish agents and surported this with a link to the Times (So you believe everything you read in the press do you). --Jedi18 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a Jewish agent. Where did you get this delusion? The Times article merely illustrated that there are people on the Net who are paid to distort the truth in favour of the Israeli government (as well as the USA and British governmnents). Unless you're trying to tell me something... I know that Tony Blair is 'centre left', and so is George W. Bush, really, although he is called 'Right Wing' in public (although decreasingly so). I didn't even say a thing about you being 'right wing'. However, his supporters in the UK, the USA and in Canada often decry his critics as 'far left' or 'far right', emphasising the idea that because he is close to centre, he is more 'balanced' than they are. However, Hitler was actually pretty close to centre-wing, and look at that way his government ran. According to the Political Spectrum test, I'm personally centre-left, slightly away from centre toward the 'Authoritarian Left' direction. Matthew A.J.י.B. 08:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

However, due to the simplicity of the test, I have to question just how accurate this assessment is. For convenience (and to prevent further accusations) I will post information about my political stances on a few issues on my User Page. Matthew A.J.י.B. 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I am not being paid by anybody to contribute to Wikipedia, I do not support George Bush or Tony Blair and I do not see how Hitler can possible be 'close too centre wing'. Wikipedias definition of far right:

In the modern world, the term far right is applied to those who support authoritarianism, usually involving a dominant class (which may be aristocratic or defined along racial or other lines), and/or an established church . Their favored authoritarian state can be an absolute monarchy, but more often today it is some form of oligarchy or military dictatorship. This is most true in regions and nations that have no real history of monarchy, such as Central America (discounting the Pre-Columbian era), Switzerland, and the United States. The term "far right" also embraces extreme nationalism, and will often evoke the ideal of a "pure" ideal of the nation, often defined on racial or "blood" grounds. They may advocate the expansion or restructuring of existing state borders to achieve this ideal nation, often to the point of embracing expansionary war, racialism, jingoism and imperialism.

Hitler was nationalst, embraced expansionary war, a radical, imperialst, authoritarian and supported an established church all of which are traits of the far right. Bush is nothing more than an idiot and Blair is failing to take tough enough action on the EU, immigration and a whole host of other issues. I will see what i come up as on the Political Spectrum test. --Jedi18 12:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This use of 'far right' may be a common use in modern language, but it is a misnomer. In terms of politics, Left means 'more collectivist' and Right means 'more capitalist/individualist', with regard to the economy. Hitler was a socialist, being slightly left of centre. I was joking about your constant mentioning of the incorrect idea that I called you a 'Jewish agent'. I did not. Many political scientists ascribe to the 'political compass' method of showing political tendencies, with Left being collectivist, Right being individualist, and another axis having on one end Authoritarianism and on the other end Anarchy. Then there is a gradient going from one end to the other of each axis. You may not support Bush or Blair, but you seem to be in support of many of their agendas. If you are not, perhaps you should clarify just what your political positions are. Why, for instance, did you make off-handed remarks deeming me a 'conspiracy theorist'?

Let's be more clear about Hitler himself, and not about his party. Hitler was for a socialised state in which the major corporations were one with government--socialism, centre-wing. In terms of society, he believed by 1935 in regimentation and control of the population through strict lifestyles and laws. This puts him in the 'Centre Authoritarian' section of the spectrum. His party had convenient associations with churches, but in general they were anti-religion on terms of the established religions, wishing to replace them with a more secular form of Neo-Paganism. Bush and Blair are both centre-left, and believe in merging the USA/Canada/Mexico in North America and general unification of their interests and states into a dictatorship which they would like to take over the rest of the world. They will not succeed at this, but it is exemplary of their natures. Bush is indeed an idiot and delusional, but Cheney is a dangerous man who runs his presidency. Blair is rather insane and indeed does believe for whatever reason that destroying the national sentiment of Britain and replacing it with a 'global' culture (American culture) will allow them to more rapidly merge their societies in this way and promote economic globalism. I'm sorry for associating you with Bush and Blair. However, if you do not like them I recommend you investigate the 'conspiracy theories' claimed about their governments [7] rather than dismissing them offhandedly. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the issue of Hitler brings up an interesting topic. In my opinion, Hitler has been wrongly made the centre of attention with regard to the atrocities of the Nazi regime. In my opinion, these were mostly the responsibility of other Nazi officers and financiers--particularly the members of the Thule Society who were the largest pushers for Germany to participate in wars and ethnic cleansing. Hitler's behaviours toward the middle and end of the war, I think, demonstrate that he was being drugged in some way and going insane as a result. He probably also had contracted syphilus, as is said, and this would have an effect on its own. Whatever the case, he did not have the power usually attributed to him. His party, however, it should be stated, were also primarily centre-left in nature, and extremely toward the Authoritarian side of the Anarchy Spectrum. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned some of my political views on my userpage, if you really believe your definition of far rightwhy dont you get the wikipedia definition changed. I cannot blame Blair alone for the spread of American culture, for this has been going on since WW2 and it is only natural for America to export its culture as every great power from Rome to imperial Britain has tried with varying success. Furthermore I cannot understand your oppersition to global economic success nor can I understand why Blair would wish to support the merger of Mexico the USA and Canada espeshally considering the laters membership of the commonwelth. As for refering too you as a 'conspiracy theorist' what term would you prefere me to use? It seems to me that you are so determined that their is some sort of great Bush/Blair plot going on that you ignor facts (such as the declining popularity of both men). --Jedi18 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalism as it is called today is about lowering wages, using slave-labour in outsourced locations for manufacturing, and homogenising world cultures in an attempt to establish American supremacy. America is now even dissolving its boundary with Canada--by 2010 we're supposed to become the same country. One major thing Blair has done is allow many immigrants into Britain which helps break down the sense of nation. You require a reading of Blair, Bush, Fox and Harper's beliefs and associations, then. They are all self-professed 'globalists' in the sense that they foresee a future Empire centred on the United States and Britain, which is to be achieved through military conquests and the merging of various economies. Bush and Blair are only frontmen, as is Harper. This is the way political agendas work. They have backers who wrote out the whole plan. It's not a theory--you can read some of their plans from their own archives, such as the Trilateral Commission and Chatham House. It really began as a group of social engineers with money, that now has developed into an attempt to create a global Empire. The declining popularity of Bush and Blair is the result of their unabashed disregard for what their populations think. To really understand the situation you have to understand that the United States government consists of three main powers: the President, the Pentagon (Military) and the CIA (the organisers behind the society). Bush's father, a former director of the CIA, was the main force that got him the presidency. It is part of an agenda being executed by a group which includes Bush Sr., and has associations with the Mossad's agendas, as well. In Great Britain, Tony Blair operates as an ally of this agenda. Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your username

Hi, again. In an unrelated note, I would like to kindly suggest that you request a username change at Wikipedia:Changing_username per suggestions at WP:USERNAME as the symbol in your username seems to create issues with communicating with you. If you look at the URL of your talk page, for example, you'll see that it reads User_talk:Matthew_A.J.%D7%99.B. , which makes it difficult to communicate with you should a user want to find your userpage in the search bar, for example. I myself had a few issues with trying to reach your userpage due to the character there - I'm not forcing you to change your username or anything, it's just a friendly request in the interest of making it easier to contact you. Should you decide to change your username, all your contributions will follow you to your new account, as well, so no harm would be done. :) Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 06:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This does not occur on my computer. You need to download the software to display Hebrew characters, or else just use the character map on your computer (all Operating Systems have them) to copy and paste the Hebrew letter 'yodh'. Matthew A.J.י.B. 06:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matthew! I have a deep respect for the Hebrew language, but I agree with Cowman...this in an English wiki, and most users only have access to English characters. A solely English username would greatly help other users communicate you with you here. Only a suggestion. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion. However, most of the characters in my username (all but one) are Latin. It doesn't really compare to some of those Chinese users whose usernames are two or three Chinese characters which are not even available on a character map. Matthew A.J.י.B. 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the yodh, it's the terminal period. Seriously. DS 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be working fine at the moment. Matthew A.J.י.B. 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Political edits

Hello.

Article talk pages are for discussing the article itself, not as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. You have been informed of this on Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. If you would like to have these conversations, by all means, have them here on your talk page, but please stop crowding up the article talk section with extraneous and out-of-scope material. Thank you. -- Avi 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a remark on the inclusion of certain information in the article. Naturally, political commentary was included. This is necessary to insure a good article. However, if you want to talk about politics on this talk page, be my guest. Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Issues:

• [8]
• [9]

Please try to be more civil when addressing your fellow editors. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please try to have a sense of humour. It's called mockery--and it happens when you act silly. Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll re-publish this 'personal attack' here, for posterity:

"Here you again demonstrate your amusing personality. You conveniently cite a few 'rules' at your dispense and pretend as though you wish to uphold NPOV and improve Wikipedia articles, when your real goal is merely to push your personal views. Hilarious. And your incessant remarks about this 'not being a political forum' are always placed after comments you disagree with. It's sad. Perhaps you should work in an elementary school--somewhere more suited to your personality type." Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on assuming good faith. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, friend.  ;) Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for continued incivility and personal attacks. . The length of this block is 24 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Cowman109^Talk 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take this time to cool down and remember to focus on content, not on the contributor. You have been warned numerous times, and yet you continued your incivility with this and this. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Come now. This isn't a personal attack. You people are very childish. This whole 'O my, don't hurt my poor little feelings' culture is sad and pathetic. So what if I'm blocked for 24 hours? The second citation wasn't even a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination--just a remark about dis-logic. Enjoy yourselves and your childish culture. 24 hours is not a very long time. It is unfortunate that the general environment established here does not promote thought or discussion, but merely mindlessness and impersonality. Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The comments are incivil - it is imperative that people focus on content, not on the contributor as talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles and Wikipedia as a whole; not for mocking editors. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And I was mocking the content of their statements and behaviours, not their overall character. Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's rather like elementary school all over again. Is this the general structure of Wikipedia? 'Now, now, user. Don't be a bad boy. You know you shouldn't make fun of other users. Naughty, naughty'. That sounds rather kinky, doesn't it? Perhaps there is an ulterior motive here... I've got it--WIkipedia is actually a fetish club for people who get turned on by elementary schoolteachers and supervisors! Eureka! Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why am I suddenly blocked from editing my own page? Matthew A.J.י.B. 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are from editing ALL of wikipedia except for your talk page. Please see WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks. Thank you. -- Avi 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, why are you commenting on this matter? Did I ask you, or did I ask Cowman109? Interesting... Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Very simply, after posting about political edits to your talk page, I placed it on my watch list to look for your answer. -- Avi 12:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take it off your watchlist, as I have no interest in talking to you. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Personal Attacks

Let us review the official Wikipedia Dictionary of Personal Attacks. Ahem.

"Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to: Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.

Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life," or perhaps "You smell like an old sock infused with eau de Paris"

Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. e.g. "You are a homo", "I don't like Blacks, Mexicans, or Chinese People", "Haha. You're Old", "I want to fuck you so hard", "You are black, just as a matter of denoting that fact. As a matter of fact, I am also black. What a peculiar observation." Perhaps more specifically, we do not, and will not, tolerate a big list of words which we are not allowed to say.

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. e.g., "You are a member of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association of America. Therefore, you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to the history of spoons."

Profanity directed against another contributor. e.g. the ubiquitous, "Fuck you!", or perhaps in a rarer instance, "Fuck me!"

Threats of legal action. "I'm gonna sue you, and then I'm gonna sue your grandmother!"

Threats of violence, including death threats, such as: "I am overcome with the sudden urge to disembowel you, then eat your intestines and vomit them into your gaping corpse."

Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect. "I'm gonna vandalise your user page...and then I'm gonna vandalise your talk page...umm...yeah!"

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. "I'm gonna tell the People's Liberation Army that you said that! Muhuhwhahahahahahahahaha!"

Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. (they may also result in years of indescribable torture, imprisonment, and perhaps eventual use of the user's organs for illegal transplants) Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.

Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion.

Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack. "

Matthew A.J.י.B. 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks — final warning

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance approach toward personal attacks. Iolakana|^T 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Final warning? A 24-hour block just ended. Perhaps you are just accidentally convicting me for the exact same instances. Matthew A.J.י.B. 09:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this is following this comment: [10]. okedem 11:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is from my own talk page. So expressing an opinion about someone supposedly qualifies as 'a personal attack'. Does all harsh/non-euphemistic language qualify as 'personal attacks' or 'offensive', too? This is ridiculous. Matthew A.J.י.B. 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, note the remarks by Sendare. I don't intend to whine about his 'personal attacks' against me, but apparently there are individuals on Wikipedia with an obsession with their subjective 'offensiveness' rating of comments. Matthew A.J.י.B. 11:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't see a personal attack in Sendare's comment. Maybe I missed it. Can you show a quote of such an attack?
2. You called him a "fascist". That's a personal attack, just like calling someone "an idiot".
3. BTW, you might want to read this [11]. okedem 11:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Describing somone as a 'fascist' is not necessarily a personal attack. Fascism is merely the philosophy of government in which nationalism and militarism are expressed, named for the Roman fasciae which they carried into battle. An Italian in 1935 may have liked being called a 'fascist', as this hearkens back to the Roman era. You need to re-read the remarks and Sendare's response. If I describe someone as 'stupid', that is not merely namecalling, but my impression of them. If I call someone 'fascist', this is a decription of the overall tenor of their statements--nationalistic and militaristic. You obviously have a personal problem with my statements. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can have whatever I want on my user page. The political information was posted specifically in response to misinterpretations of my ideas. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would appear that you are the very same idiot whom I criticised harshly for your ridiculous and arrogant remarks. I intend not to discuss this matter at all with you, since your opinion is of no consequence. You are not an administrator, and you're obviously overly interested in what happens to my account because of your personal, moronic ideologies. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

“Very same idiot” is a personal attack; you have been warned, please edit your statements. -- Avi 12:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Very same idiot is a remark based on my impressions of him thusfar. He has acted like nothing but a fool and an idiot. Idiot is merely a term meaning 'one without wisdom' or 'a stupid person'. Taking this as a 'personal attack' is totally subjective. It is a criticism. And what, exactly, is the cause for your interest in my page? Has my Talk Page become the 'Israeli supporters hound Matthew for his remarks' page? Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: talk page, see above -- Avi 12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, I haven't even bothered to continue commenting on any political articles, esp. Israel-related articles, recently. I'm reading on the bettter side of Wikipedia--history and such. The Mid-East political articles are quickly becoming just cesspools for Israeli and American fanatics to spew their non-sense. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. -- Avi 12:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's enough of your provokes and B.S. Next time any of you little twerps posts on my page, I'm deleting the comment. It's a new official policy of mine--delete comments from Israeli twerps. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're from Canada, I'm from the US, what does this have to do with Israel? Other than your making another personal attack? -- Avi 12:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of this harassment has come from Israelis and temporary-Israelis, as well as Israel-supporters. Obviously there is an even more dangerous air of government-worshipping nationalism there than there is in the United States. Also, Avi, that is the last comment of yours I'm replying to. Any further comments will be deleted. Matthew A.J.י.B. 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as long as you do not delete official warnings and block notices, as that is considered vandalism. You may archive them, however. I hope you eventually work outa way toallow yourself to contribute gainfully without feeling like you are being besieged, although that may be telling you something. Good Luck. -- Avi 13:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record... that isn't accurate. Removal of comments from your user talk page without responding to them is sometimes considered 'hostile' and removal of warnings may be viewed as 'hiding things', but neither is "vandalism" nor any form of a blockable offense in and of themselves. They are frowned upon like more general incivility, but are not vandalism and may not be reverted as such. --CBD 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)