Israel shamir

Welcome to Wikipedia!

This is a site controlled by philosemites. But what else is new? Don't they control much of our discourse? This is the main message of Israel Shamir, this is why they fight by the whole Cabal against his message. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be open for editing by all. But if you try to go against their view - they block you immediately under so many pretexts. And not much can be done - they hide behind fancy names like Denis Diderot 11:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) What makes you an editor? Why do you use the name of a great dead man? What is your true name, profession, country? No, they prefer to fight in the dark, where they can hit you from safe distance.

"Philosemites" appears to be an epithet you apply to anyone who disagrees with Shamir's expressed opinions about Jews and the benefits of anti-Semitism. Since these opinions are rather extreme, and, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, often based on errors and outright deception, the vast majority of people disagree with Shamir. It's not that this majority "control much of our discourse". It's that our discourse is influenced by reality. Most people, including Encyclopaedists of course, regard this as a good thing. But there are also many, notably all kinds of propagandists and people who take comfort in some pleasant myth, who tend to see reality as their worst enemy. But reality can never be anyone's real enemy and our imagination is also real. Propagandists think they can contain untruth and use it for well-defined goals. Neurotics think it may help them enjoy life. But lies can never be contained. The effects are unpredictable, and they usually end up hurting the propagandists themselves. Neurotics become engulfed in a war against reality that destroys their lives.

(I hope you forgive me for doubting that you are Israel Shamir. The English in his writings is different from yours. I use the phrase "expressed opinions", since I doubt that they are his real opinions.)

You were clearly not blocked "immediately" as anyone can verify by looking at this and this. In fact you were welcomed to Wikipedia in the hope that you would join our community and make useful contributions. You have been temporarily blocked, since you have broken basic, easily understood, Wikipedia rules several times. You also ignored repeated warnings that this could happen if you continued to disregard the rules.

I use the pen name "Denis Diderot" on Wikipedia. Since "original research" isn't allowed on Wikipedia, contributions from a Nobel laureate and from a high school dropout are treated the same way. All edits must be based on reliable sources and present the established opinions without taking sides. That's why my real name "is quite irrelevant; as irrelevant as the ‘real name’ of Leon Trotsky (Bernstein) or of Ariel Sharon (Scheinermann) or of Andre Maurois (Wilhelm Herzog) or of Salman Rushdie when he was in hiding in Bienfait, Saskatchewan, living under an assumed name." [1]. In fact, when editors are anonymous, the debate on talk pages tends to improve. This is because ad hominem arguments become more difficult.

--Denis Diderot 17:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir article

If you disagree with the contents of an article it is unwise to replace it with charged terms[2], unsourced defenses etc. You may request clarification or correction on the talk page belonging to that article. I believe Denis Diderot suggested the same above.

You have chosen "Israel shamir" as a username. If you are the real Israel Shamir, you are strongly discouraged from editing an article about yourself. We have various processes by which you can get redress for complaints. If you are simply a supporter of same, please read Wikipedia:Username and consider having it changed, as editing under the name of another is de facto impersonation and may lead to blocks from editing Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 17:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As I, JFW, and others have pointed out several times, you

a) should change your user name or stop editing this article,

b) stop inserting original research and your personal point of view

c) discuss your proposed changes on the talk page

These are not our personal opinions but Wikipedia policies.

": kindly, --Denis Diderot 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another important policy is the three revert rule. This rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours.

You reverted the Israel Shamir article 5 times in a 24 hour period. Please be aware that users who ignore this rule may be banned from editing Wikipedia articles.

Best regards, --Denis Diderot 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Shamir to Diderot alias Moshe alias etc etc: Please note: 1. you are too emotionally involved with Jewish subjects, and in the interests of Wikipedia you should stay away from this article as well as from others on this theme. 2. You and your alter egos with various names did the same amount of reverts. 3. Do you claim there are different sets of rules for philosemites and for the rest? 4. I wonder why do you insist, for instance, to keep me in a different church? Shamir

1. If someone wants the articles to be correct, would you call that "emotionally involved"? Whether it's a "Jewish subject" or not obviously makes no difference at all. Is the Israel Shamir article a "Jewish subject"? I thought he was a Christian.

2. I don't have any aliases on Wikipedia.

3. The Wikipedia rules apply to everyone who edits articles. Whether they are philosophers, philosemites or philologists.

4. The issue is not what church Shamir belongs to, but which denomination.

--Denis Diderot 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Whom do you cheat? If you were not emotionally involved you would move to deal with something else. Analysis of your contributions shows that you are obsessed with fighting for Jewish cause. As for your remark "Is the Israel Shamir article a "Jewish subject"? I thought he was a Christian." it is disingenious at best, sneaking at worst.

Your pseudo-psychological analysis is flawed (as one would expect from the pseudo prefix). Perhaps you feel that having correct information in articles dealing with "Jewish subjects" is the same as "fighting for Jewish cause"? The articles I've edited on Wikipedia have often been by way of association. When working on one article I may read things that are relevant to other associated articles. So I check those articles and sometimes make some additions or corrections. Since you don't say so explicitly, I can only speculate that you mean that Israel Shamir is a "Jewish subject" by virtue of being opposed to what you consider "[the] Jewish cause" or "Jewish cause[s]". Combining this reasoning with Shamir's ideas would make e.g. the Eastern Orthodox Church a Jewish subject. Is this what you have in mind?

--Denis Diderot 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think here you guys prove there is a Jewish conspiracy? Or three Jews against one Christian is rather a pogrom? Israel shamir 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"A pogrom" huh? Well thats not overly dramatic at all. Also, how would you know that we are Jews? You are assuming it because we are removing silly pov passages from an article about a fringe person, who probably is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article (at least not a long one).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for revert warring and incivility

I have blocked you for 24 hour for revert-warring and personal attacks (see post above) and He (and this article) is an object of a concentrated attack by many identity-concealing Wikipedia-based philosemites. at Israel_Shamir [3] -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add some things:

• Editing article about yourself (which I assume based on some comments made above), is allowed, but I suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information to avoid some basic issues.
• Being the subject of the article does not mean you have overriding powers on the content. Obviously, as the person in question, you have much more knowledge about all the facts which could help dramatically to improve the content. But having said that, it does not imply that key policies as Wikipedia:Verifiability and guidelines like Wikipedia:Reliable sources are moot for imformation that you provide yourself.
• The best way to get an article free of error is to provide good sources (which you probabkly know better than any editor around), and to discuss those error here. Revert warring, and using slurs against editors is in general the fastest way to a get a hard time at wikipedia.

I hope this clarifies a few things, and if you have more questions, please ask them. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for continued revert warring

I think I was pretty clear about things, but it seems you just continued immediatly after the block expired. Therefore, I have blocked you for a week. Edit warring is just not the way things are solved here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR again

FYI, you have violated 3RR (as well as other WP:RULES) again and may be reported and blocked. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Your week-long block has been extended to indefinite for not being here to build the encyclopedia. See this WP:ANI thread, the block log, and this link. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

possible quotation that does not exist

Shamir cites a quote by Simone Weil in his essay "Gaza: Of Mice and Men" :

"If the Jews of old were to come back, they would destroy our churches and massacre us all."

I have searched the Web for this quote in vain. The only hit is Shamir's own essay mentioned above.

Could someone please help me locate this quote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.170.198.37 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC).