Ernest Bevin

Dear "User:Sirtoyou", if you're the same as anonymous IP 80.6.62.33, then read what I already wrote on User_talk:80.6.62.33 -- AnonMoos 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bis

Dude, please don't mutilate other people's comments on article discussion pages! It's considered a violation of Wikipedia protocols, and hardly forms a foundation for any cordial or constructive future discussion. The only permissible edits to other people's comments are technical formatting changes (indentation levels, etc.), and signing unsigned comments. Furthermore, it would show a commendable degree of honesty on your part, and clear the decks for forthright future dialogue, if you would plainly admit to being anonymous IP 80.6.62.33. AnonMoos 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ter

If I'm regularly editing Wikipedia articles, then I'm likely to see a comment on my user talk-page sooner than I'll see an e-mail (since I often check my e-mail somewhat sporadically). I didn't get your e-mail of eight days ago (Monday before last) until two days ago, and your presumption in your second e-mail that I had already seen your first e-mail was factually incorrect. Therefore, I didn't know about your real name and website until quite recently.

On other issues:

The point about IP 80.6.62.33 may seem a minor technical detail, but in fact many people are for some reason strangely reluctant to admit that their different editing identities are the same person, regardless of how glaringly obvious the circumstantial evidence is. The way you originally started your editing career (as an unregistered anonymous IP who was continually reverting edits, while refusing to acknowledge comments or discuss anything) was rather problematic, and I wanted to get everything in a row by establishing that you were not pretending not to be 80.6.62.33.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to learn pretty quickly not to mutilate other people's talk page comments when replying to them, or you will just create even more problems for yourself.
The way you have presented yourself in editing Ernest Bevin and Talk:Ernest Bevin does not necessarily inspire me with an overwhelming desire to read your Master's dissertation... AnonMoos 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you edit Ernest Bevin again, please answer these two questions:

1) Isn't it true that by his statements and actions, Ernest Bevin antagonized many in America, and caused a large number of Jews to hate him passionately and intensely, but without thereby making the Arabs any more likely to assent to a compromise, and without visibly bringing the British government's publicly-stated goal of arriving at a settlement agreement in Palestine (and so avoiding fighting between Arabs and Jews there) one iota closer to fruition?

1) If it is true that by his statements and actions, Ernest Bevin antagonized many in America, and caused a large number of Jews to hate him passionately and intensely, but without thereby making the Arabs any more likely to assent to a compromise, and without visibly bringing the British government's publicly-stated goal of arriving at a settlement agreement in Palestine (and so avoiding fighting between Arabs and Jews there) one iota closer to fruition, then why shouldn't it be mentioned in the Wikipedia article devoted to him? AnonMoos 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your negative role on article Ernest Bevin

I assume that User:Nandt1 isn't any more of a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of Israel than you are, but he works constructively to improve the article Ernest Bevin, while you seem to be incapable of it. Why is that? AnonMoos 18:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who the bloody hell do you think you are?

Persist with your mindless Zionism if you must but how can you possibly justify removing my primary source references from this page? It is censorship pure and simple and shows how closed your mind is to new information.

And you have the gall to accuse me of being negative!

I didn't revert your edits because of the quotes you added, but because of your insistence on adding an irrelevant (and anachronistic in terms of the commonly-used political terminology of 1948) personal individualistic condemnation of Israel as "apartheid"[sic] (kind of like your old attempt to insert a sentence "Zionists stole Palestine" in the article). Such on-the-fly insults or tangential "zingers" may be highly valued, and considered the height of clever engagé wittiness, among the narrow grad-school cliques where you wrote your master's thesis, but they aren't wanted or needed on Wikipedia -- and the sooner you figure that out, the smoother your Wikipedia editing career will probably be. AnonMoos 07:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]