User:Yahel Guhan/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • You are really unbelievable(!), and your arguments are not even convincing. --(American force 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC))[1]


  • I don't need to read anti Islamic propaganda, especially, when it is written by the likes of you :(216.99.58.101 04:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[2]
  • It appears that Yahel Guhan has an axe to grind, and prefers biased language to neutral language. --Tsunami Butler 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[3]
  • Yahel Guhan, I would like to address your persistent trolling.Rokus01 08:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[4]
  • All you are doing now is showing that you are unwilling to assume good faith and take each edit on its own. Cheers.PelleSmith 03:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[5]
  • Recruiting fellow members of the Anti-Muslim brigade for vote stacking, and supporting your POV/Agenda, etc is against the policies of Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing such acts in the future. 216.99.53.226 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) [6]
  • Screw You And Your High Horse, Asshole Denihcamder 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) [7]
  • Yahel Guhan and his cohorts, with obvious agendas are constantly trying to vandalize this article with information completely irrelevant to the programming. The article is NOT about certain views, it is about the PROGRAM. How is information from a foreign scholar who has nothing to do with the program relevant? I mean just because two views seem similar does not mean they are connected. Abureem 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [8]
  • editors who have reverted you, excluding me, are to be congratulated for defending the principles of WP:CONSENSUS and in a few cases WP:NPOV.--Cerejota 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[9]
  • Are you a memeber of the Anti-Muslim brigade too? 216.99.59.15 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [10]
  • I bet Yahel Guhan is Ahmadinejad's sock, there's no other way he could know exactly how Mahmoud feels. =P --Kirby♥time 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[11]
  • And this is all off topic, but one thing I know - "Yahel Guhan" is obviously basing his POV in this discussion as being a AFRICAN-AMERICAN JEW, (yeah, a black AND a jew, and even an african-american), so he obviously feels he is being targeted by this website. That is a trend on wikipedia - people defending their own culture by biasing articles. Stop this. SenseOnes 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC) [12]
  • meh my posts were contructive
the entire article is pro zionism and very poorly sourced
so if your just gonna let propaganda pieces hang about
why should we not have our input
btw your a thife along with your ancestors
:)
have a nice day Jse07 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [13]
  • The consensus only includes your wikiproject buddies. You are a cabal and try to get your way by ganging up on minority views to silence them! Well, this is not a minority in real life, just academic elitists (not nearly as credible as Britannica) like your type of Wikipedian consider it so. The mainstream media considers those people to be racist and so does the ADL. You are twisting this. BTW, you are an activist so WP:DBF. I'm just another person without the luxury of a wikiproject to work tirelessly for my beliefs as you do, with like-minded Jonestown kool-aid junkies. With your wikiproject cabal to join you in WP:3RR, you violate WP:GAME all the time, in order to suppress legitimate differences of editing inclusion from your own. Savignac 05:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC) [14]
  • Here is an example of somebody looking for anything and everything to feel sorry for himself, so he can treat others like shit and deny the feelings and opinions of others. After all, other people are worthless if they treat you that way. All are worthless, because of a few disputes, that one person is merely the other side of shit-tossing in and just as guilty of. Shift the blame and never admit responsibility! Always be in the right. How fanatically self assured. Savignac 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) [15]
  • i want to talk with you on this topic . i want to remove your prejudices .blessings. Zikrullah (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [16]
  • Whether you think islam is false or not is irrelevant, as a christian I might be nclined to think that Judaism and Islam are 'false', you say that we 'have' to believe islam is false because I am a Christian, no this is not the case, depending on what you mean by 'false'. Certainly I do not follow all the teaching of the Quran, but there are many good suggestions about how to live ones life in the Quran, some of which also exist in christianity, some of which dont, so I dont think islam is 'false'. You may think islam is false, whats to stop me turning around and saying to you Judaism is false? I could probably give you a hell of a theological argument for saying why Judaism is false,. but I do not believe it is completly false, and at the end of the day whatever argument I may provide whether a religion is 'false' or not is merely a biased opion. So what if Bless sins may have a pro-msulim leabing, we all have bias in our approach, and in fact I would say that your bais against islam is far more agressive and evident than that of Bless sin's pro-islam bias. Dont pretend you are some omniscient perfect observer, becase as your edits show that would be a clear and arrogant lie to yourself, and my only advice to you is to refrain from being hypocritical.86.150.147.133 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)User: R.G.P.A
After looking at your userpage you also seem to have articles related to islam in your sites, just as Bless Sins does, and as your pathetically disguised bais shows, you are being nothing more than a simple hypocrite to attack Bless Sins for doing the same thing you do.86.150.147.133 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC) User: R.G.P.A [17]


  • Ha! I love your stawmanning, you group all legitimate criticism of you into offensive personal attacks or antisemitism, I think this says more about you as a person than about the people attacking you, but who cares... I wont pretend to be some unbiased God as you do, having your cake and eating it, sure I may have been a bit agressive, but it was in defense of another editor and not in an attack on you, and you have been equally offensive, of course the cabal wont remove your comments. Sure I understand why your protective, and why many editors will attack you for simply racist and ignorant reasons, i.e. just because your black and Jewish, which is a hard position to be in because your a minority of a minority, including the fact your Jewish but unreligious. However, whereas these criticism based entirely on your beliefs or race are entirely illegitimate and you are right to claim they are personal attacks, criticims of your behaviour as a person should be adressed and defended, not grouped with rascism, as this simply gives off the impression (to me anyway) that you are being an ignorant person. Coupled with the fact that you seem in certain instances to criticise editors using racist stereotypes simply makes you seem culpable of the very things you are accusing others of, and downright agressive. If you want to give a positive impression to others, such as myself, (although I suspect you care very little what people such as me think) perhaps to adress criticism such as mine where it is rather than claiming it is a personal attack would bode well.86.150.147.133 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)User: R.G.P.A [18]
  • That's certainly what Yahel makes it seem like. I would wager to say that Mr. Yahel is of the Semitic persuasion or just very biased. Either way you only reinforce the stereotypes you try to claim to want to abolish. Self-hate and anti-white/European bigotry. Koalorka (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [19]
  • I'm well aware of that policy thank you. You should however consider toning down your racist rhetoric. Koalorka (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [20]
  • Hi ! any reason you are vandalizing the Stormfront page?Die4Dixie 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [21]
  • Who do you think you are? You are certainly not psychic, sir, and that would be a requirement needed in order to revert edits without so much as looking at them. This is not an encyclopedia of a single viewpoint sir. I'd suggest you visit conservapedia if that's what you're looking for. Some edits will be made by people whom you do not agree with, or who, while seeking attention, make edit summaries to attract your attention. Don't be a dick. Look before you edit. Beefliver 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC) [22]
  • Well ur snotty. And don't even think about answering because I will not reply. DLWDWFreek (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) [23]
  • i would like to know why you reverted my edits on the Negro page. just because you are a negro you think you are right in removing truth from articles as you did to my edit to Islam. i was removing biased liberal slant. 76.22.60.40 (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC) [24]
  • You're not getting that cat without consensus. You need an RfC and to be banned from racial articles dood the_undertow talk 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) [25]
  • vegadark and ALL ADMINS THINK AGAIN YOU CAN NEVR STOP ME I WILL ALWAYS EDIT THIS BULLSHIT YOU CAN NEVER STOP MY IP ITS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE I WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO EDITING WIKIPEDIA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHO I AM. I WILL ALWAYS BE HERE TO EDIT ALWAYS YOU BOTS CANT STOP ADMINS CANT STOP NOTTHING WILL. THE MORE YOU KEEP TRING THE SRTONGER I WILL GET I WILL NOT KNOW WHEN HOW OR WHO WILL EDIT> SO JUST TRY TO STOP ME COWARDS CONFRONT ME DONT SEND YOU BOTS LIKE THE PUSSIES YOU ARE. I HVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY PUSSIES IN MY LIFETIME CONFRONT ME COWRAWDS I DARE YOU, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA GOD BLESS THE 1st AMENDMENT YOU CAN SCILENCE ME I AM ALWAYS HERE AND WILL NEVER BE STOPPED YOU BASTARDS. COME ON HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT FUCKING PUSSIES PEACE IM OUT NIGGAS. 75.125.166.19 (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC) [26]
  • retarded 172.132.5.20 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) [27]
  • [Annon's addition to this page] Although some of the comments may be exaggerations, they show that several people have accused me of the same biases, i.e. being anti-Muslim and anti-white, and I can proudly say that is indeed true. 216.165.95.5 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC) [28]
  • The "Jews" they are targeting are part of the Israeli armed forces. Since when is it racist to kill members of a country's armed forces? And don't try to say that they are "civilians". Every single Israeli citizen is required to join the IDF, so evey single one is a potential murderer/terrorist and the killing is justified, not racist.--Kirby♥time 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC) [29]

[edit] Comments posted, but specificly not directed at me

  • I guess since you were nigger lover and all you forgot "nappy headed ho". Cordeyn (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC) [32]
  • It's not "white supremacist". People saying it is have given in to bias and Jewish Supremacist sources like ADL and SPLC are unreliable. Cordeyn (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) [33]
  • Are you people Jewish? Why are you working together as a cabal to harass me? Cordeyn (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[34]
  • so pretty much balck people are dumb niggers who can pick my cotton
FUCK YOU
WHITE POWER 70.181.72.130 03:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) [35]
  • Well what do you expect, Funky? These are all pathetic Judaized admins. They have no honour anyway and the sad part is that they think they're the good guys. By the way funky, I highly recommend you to read the Holocaust Industry. Don't worry though, in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC) [36]

[edit] All time favorites

  • An atheist + Supporter of Zionism + Anti-Islamist = Again an Atheist. This is your definition about yourself? You would take my comment harsh, well I would ask you, 1- Does your Jewish religion allow you to tell lies to claim to be an atheist? or 2- Does your Atheism allow you to support Zionism on the basis of historical facts? If you agree to the first case, then you are simply a liar. If you agree to the second, then you simply should head back to Africa as well as all White Americans should head towards Europe and hand over the U.S to native Americans. Again pardon me, I know these comments to be very harsh and I can feel their pain, but it is to make you ponder. Please read my comment in the article "Islamist Terrorism" just below your randomly collected Quranic Quotes. Thanks for your time and being patient. VirtualEye 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC) [37]
  • No wonder you're against the war of on drugs. you're black. so obvious you are a racist, drug user, and ignorant liberal. Crack head. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 68.211.215.125 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC) [38]
  • It is so highly disturbing for me to see how an individual like Yahel Guhan lets his emotions bias his views. I know your a self-defined jew and feel targeted. But you are labeling an entire user community neo-nazi based on nothing but prejudice, and if it wasnt for people like me and others this article would say "neo-nazi, racist white devil site". Your kind should be banned from wikipedia because you impose a threat to the neutrality of any slightly controversial articles like this one. SenseOnes 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [39]
  • "You have a dubious agenda, I´m afraid"- Why don´t you use some arguments instead of trying to scare off those with different opinion? And as I see, you have a life dedication to fight aganst Muslims. Bravo. 80.108.250.170 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [40]
  • REMOVED FROM YAHEL GUHAN'S TALK, BECAUSE HE DELETED MY ACCURATE COMPLAINT OF HIS GANGBANGING: Play your wikiproject cabal WP:GAME. You take turns revert warring me, to avoid breaking the 3RR. How cool to win. Aren't you proud? Savignac 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[41] [42]
  • It seems that you are a strongly prejudiced, anti-white bigot. But that's OK these days, right? Koalorka (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [43]