User talk:Elassint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How would you like for me to prove to you that I am who I say I am? Visit me on Facebook, I am Bobby D. Floeter. As an artist I have care for the information about myself that people are able to find on the internet so if we could work together to clean this page up that would be fantastic. Thank you.

Also you can email me at

(Ilikejmascis (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

Because this is information about myself and I am selective about what I want people to know about me. I don't want my career as a musician connected to the acting I did as a child. So rather than discuss my reasons behind wanting this page about myself to be the way I want it, why won't you just help me?

(Ilikejmascis (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Many thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Oi. I wanted it my way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalkermb84 (talkcontribs) 09:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC) GO SCREW YOURSEF WHEN I FIND OUT WHO THE HELLL YOU ARE I WILL SAY IT TO YOUR FACE YOU SOB ITS FREE SPEECH, SO FU — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Hi There...

I hope you are well. I added an external link to this page: and you removed it. Why?

Warmest Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janemeropi (talkcontribs) 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Sure, I guess I will talk a bit here in this public forum. I removed malicious content fm my eBay page. I will continue to take it down now that I know this is placed here. Why did you put it back up. There is much more to thias story. There has been a "war" between myself and CGC since Aug 2007. CGC damaged All Star #8 (first Wonder Woman 1941) and All Star #7 I hand delivered with other comics in their custody and refused to make good on it. It has escalated from there. That firm "guarentees" nothing. Lies were being told about me on their boards. I responded defending myself. One of their Moderators then blocked me from defending myself. I then began to explain this on Face Book. I was told the owner then threatened to sue me. I have almost 9000 positive feedbacks on my eBay store. I have been dealing vintage comics for 47+ years. Their Hall of S "vote" is a very small sampling of the comics world. This "controversy" as posted is malicious. Robert Beerbohm dba — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlowinNTheWind (talkcontribs) 05:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

April 28 2014 You wrote me last night. I am not up on wiki rules & regs. I aoplogize for that. I am very wrapped up getting my life back in order following some major surgeries and recovery. There was a wiki editor named Dianna who appears to have protected me from malicious stuff last Dec 2013. I thank her for that.

If you can pass this on to her I would appreciate it. I also notice "emertis" being on her page so I do not know if she is still active inside Wikipedia

Hello Dianna I thank you for protecting me last Dec from malicious libelous type words placed on my wikipage some one made up about me. Early on I did not know it was not kosher to place data about one self on one's own page. I since learned that is not good and went on to other aspects of my life.

Some one decided to place CGC "Controversy" on my page evidently soem time ago. I just became aware a couple days ago. There is much more to this "story" than the few words so far placed there.

Am hopefully signing this correctly now this time

BlowinNTheWind (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Robert Beerbohm

The main reason I reverted you is because you didn't leave an edit summery while you were doing so. Revisiting that it is clear that it may have been an error on my part to restore the content as it was a poorly sourced forum witch hunt. I apologize. Elassint Hi 00:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion[edit]

Your blocking the factual information from biblical scholars and ref's is absurd in that the open sources listed in my edit show the true lack of educated material in this document. No Greek is included in this document heading of Phi-Rho, Tau-Rho, Sta-Rho, nor Strong's information and the constant removal of the Archaeological documentary refs as well as the bias toward the Roman Catholic dogma ignoring Talmudic records show your lack of full understanding of the implications of educated unbiased online encyclopedia. The ENGLISH heading has no refs to the KJV where first from Welsh and Tyndale came the King James version using Cross in place of Stake and Starous in the Greek.. Are you a Roman Catholic or just do not want to have real information on this site. To spite the many varied clear ERRORS and false information in several posts and articles on this site, I took my valuable time to provide the correct educated information about the truth from scholars on this subject, and you call this a disruptive edit? You are an intellectual midget who shows your clear bias in lack of educated perspectives from all scholars who have no agenda of slanting perspective to bow before trees, rocks, and crosses in religious content that has no truth and weak evidences in the bias of the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Merrick PhD (talkcontribs) 16:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Before making baseless accusations and blatant insults, you may want to read WP:SPS and WP:NPOV. Your strong personal viewpoint is clearly visible, and it is never acceptable to add your personal viewpoint as fact. Furthermore you were persistently restored your biased text without any negotiation whatsoever. Elassint Hi 16:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a blatant insult to say that this article has a clear bias toward the Roman Catholic view point without consideration of the alternative perspectives from noted sources such as Simcha Jacobovici and from the concordance of James Strong which your article ignores in discourse about the cross. The original Greek word for the ancient Tammuz Tau was Tau-Rho which is not in the texts of scripture, and only found in the book of Barnabas in the added notes in the margin, which was made by a later catholic scribe. You say that "it is never acceptable to add your personal viewpoint as fact", I say it is also then not acceptable to insist that the Catholic viewpoint which bias is clearly in this article as fact is scholarly or truthfully information worthy of display. I would be more than glad to provide information and any cooperative edit to which the clear errors is bias are removed from this article and any time you are willing to remove your clear Roman Catholic bias as nothing more than what it is, a fabrication of Doctrine from Constantine's mixture of Mithraism with Tauists assimilation of pagan members of the Roman Empire to gain their converts from the surrounding religions. For Example under the English heading, a Roman Catholic source is used without any real content on the Hebrew word " נס " for "pole" is Nace, Strong's number H5251, shows the direct relationship to the Greek for Stake, σταυρός "stauros", Strong's number G4716 which leaves little room for doubt in theological terms as that the English translations of these words as "Cross" are bias translations to align with the translators doctrine and religious influences of Anglican protestant or Roman Catholic views. your ref 47 to Roman Missal, Friday of Holy Week which is clearly uneducated bias of the error of Roman Catholic construction as Friday the Death of Jesus; See Encyclopedia Biblica Page 435 where the holy week is discussed being that the Hebrew Religion calls the feast day of Leviticus 23 Passover, and subsequent First day of the 7 day feast of Unleavened bread a "Sabbath" also, which determinations by many noted scholars have proven the Date 31 CE for the Holy Week was a Thursday Passover "Sabbath" which contends that the Weekly 7th Day sabbath was NOT the day of Christ's death but in fact the 2nd Sabbath of the Holy week from Friday sundown to Saturday Sundown as kept for 5700+ years by the Jewish People. Thus the Translators bias from the facts places a Roman Catholic viewpoint as "Fact" when all educated scholars state that the English translation was in Error of biased information presented as facts. This would have put the Words given in this Article without correct linguistic neutrality or educated discussion of the facts as they were on the actual accounts given in the only records of the Jerusalem Talmud which states: the High Priests of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time show from the work of restored versions of the Jerusalem Talmud the clear usage of the word "Nace" stating "Yahsha (Jesus) was hung on a pole [נס] on the eve of Passover" Jerusalem Talmud [[1]] 31 CE. Dr Peter Williams and Dr David Instone Brewer in conjunction with Tyndale House had through computer image enhancement restored the Talmudic account previously blotted out by order of the Catholic Church in order to grant license for copyright publication of the stolen text during the captivity of the Jewish people in 70AD where these records were taken to Rome by Emperor Titus. The license was granted to Jewish publications of the Jerusalem Talmud account of the council of the High Priests after the removal of the text proving that the cross was not how Jesus was executed. These documented FACTS are lacking in this article and this shows that the very reason you choose to delete my edit is due to your bias: "you may want to read WP:SPS and WP:NPOV. Your strong personal viewpoint is clearly visible, and it is never acceptable to add your personal viewpoint as fact." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Merrick PhD (talkcontribs) 19:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If your have a legitimate issue with the article it is best to take it to the article's official discussion page. I was reverting you because you were not attempting to disprove allegations that you were violating WP:SOAPBOX made by another editor besides me and that you were linking to self published sources. Elassint Hi 17:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edin Dzecko[edit]


You appear to have reverted changes I made to this page on the basis of vandalism. What I have written is based on the game he played in today at Goodison Park. If I remove the actor/stuntman comment, the rest is factual and correct. Will you please allow these changes if made without the sarcasm?


Footy Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I dunno if that event is significant enough, if you think it is ask on the talk page. Elassint Hi 18:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User Oda Mari[edit]

There is absolute no association between myself and any of the users that Oda Mari is brining up. However, Oda Mari keeps reverting other user's contributions and try to camouflage historical articles in his own Japanese nationalist account. I have contacted with other admins about this issue and Oda Mari has been issued a warning in April. And since what this user is doing is making things seem like they are all sock puppets. This is; 1) discrimination against users with Korean name; 2) denaturalizing wikipedia environment and making it very difficult for new comers to contribute; 3) personal attacks/defamation of the view points that are opponent to his. Please let me know if there is anything I can help to stop this user's unacceptable behaviour. Or if I have made any mistakes in this conflict. (email address removed)

Much appreciated,

--Junohk (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In your edit you made here you re-added the following text that was removed by me:

-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Fuck YouǑItalic text

That is why I was throwing around the word vandalism, because the above is vandalism that was inserted by an IP.

Furthermore, I don't think there's a valid reason to exclude that information about Goryeo unless it's factually incorrect. If you think it's unfair to have Goryeo be the only Mongolian tributary that mentions it's a Mongolian tributary state, than perhaps a possible solution is to have the other Mongolian tributary states mention that they are Mongolian tributary states.

Elassint Hi 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What did I do?[edit]

??????????????????? (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You blanked the article, which is considered vandalism. Elassint Hi 04:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking for consistent editting in Goryeo please.[edit]

First, I did not had ability to tag references so I mistakenly removed some information. So it can be seem as vandalizing. I feel sorry about that, but I ask for consistent editting. Check Mongol empire, and over 30 countries were tribute countries of Mongol empire. I do not deny that Goryeo was kind of tribute of Mongol empire during that period even they had independent king reigning country. But it was already mentioned in text several time so I and many users think it was just an repetition to say it on info box. Only Goryeo and other one country are cited as tribute country on info box, even there was more than 30 countries on list. Check this out please. This is already mentioned on text many times. So I ask for deleting this information from the info box or as your mention, add this information in other 29 countries as well.

Clearly I do not deny that Goryeo was kind of tributary relations with Mongol at that period but this needs consistent edit to delete that information from info box or to add that information in info box for other countries as well.

Thanks ask for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heeeeyoung (talkcontribs) 01:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you thanked me[edit]

Welcome mat.jpg You thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
...along with seventeen layers of fun because you deserve it! It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this awesome encyclopedia and the staggering, huge community effort that supports it! – Paine Ellsworth

18:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Proway appliance repair[edit]

You keep marking the last article I wrote. How do I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemowhoes (talkcontribs) 09:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of Programme[edit]

I recently changed the spellings of 'Program' to 'Programme' on the following article: "" to bring them in line with the other Commonwealth spellings used in the article. Singapore is a Commonwealth country which uses these spellings, and the official government websites which describe these programmes use the Commonwealth spellings. My changes are in line with Wikipedia policy: "While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently."


How you can think that Gardman historic Turkish state, in the territory of Azerbaijan can be Armenian? Of course it is possible if your are armenian, falsification is described for you ! Please be neutral not Armenian slave !!!

Deepak Chaurasia & Rajat Sharma[edit]

Hi Elassint

Regarding my edit on both the above articles, I believe I tried to maintain neutrality on the information I added.

If you look in the social media like twitter & facebook, you will find there is widespread mention of accusations on both the above journalists regarding their alleged bias. You might even google some links related to them. So I thought it important to mention the controversy surrounding them, like wikipedia does in many articles. Of course the conclusion/opinion would be up to the reader by investigating further. Wikipedia must not contain personal opinions outside quotes but should highlight the opinion of a large mass? Anyway, you may consider rephrasing what I mentioned, if possible.

Below links might help-

  (the news in this image translates to - 'do aliens drink cow's milk?')

  (the news translates to - 'watch live rape happen on India TV')

Thanks, hope I made sense. (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


Can you not delete everything? Can you just put markings on those that you think are opinionated? We're both working hard for this and deletion takes a lot much time and doesn't do any progress at all. Thank you for noticing it but I did not intend to give my own opinion, it's just information pulled out of the sources. I'll double check it and see what you were talking about. I'm still learning. Thanks again! - Fmgverzon, 06:58, 30 May 2014‎ (EDT)

You've clearly improved the text so that it no longer reflects an opinion. Thank you for your positive contribution. Elassint Hi 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy and Paste Moves[edit]

Hi Elassint, I wanted to let you know that copy and paste moves are copyright violations if they don't have attribution. Attribution can be done by history merges. Below is the message I left on the IP's talk page:

I realize that both of you made these copy and paste moves in good faith, but the text you copied at under CC BY-SA 3.0, which means that it has to have attribution. The text can be moved (I have no opinion about whether is proper or not) by a history move (for attribution). Here is where you can find out how to fix cut-and-paste moves. I'll give you time to fix the copy and paste moves, but they are copyright violations that will have to be fixed or reverted. I am One of Many (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had mentioned this before you threatened to have the user blocked over not understanding what seems to be a fairly complicated policy that the user clearly didn't know about. Why wouldn't a mention of attribution on the talk page of the articles work? Elassint Hi 20:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:I am One of Many, I looked over Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves as you suggested, but if I am reading correctly that page seems to cover a situation where someone has attempted a page move by copying and pasting the content of one article into another, so I am not sure how that would help with this situation. That page does link to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which in turn links to Wikipedia:Splitting. What I gather from those pages is that when moving content from one article to another (not moving the whole article), attribution in the edit history is necessary, and is something I have already done (see for example, [2] [3]). Reading the page about splitting, it seems I already did just about everything there except for step 8, so I went ahead and did that. Please review and get back to me and let me know if there is anything else you think I need to do to make sure this is properly fixed. 2601:D:9400:448:2C73:D434:5FC:23F4 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming breaking the article up into three articles is ok, you will need an Admin to merge the histories so that the people who wrote it get proper attribution. Now, it maybe that some users will not view this split as justifiable. That is, do the books have sufficient notability on their own to justify their own article? One way to avoid some of these issues in the future is to first start a discussion on an articles talk page and propose what you would like to do. Regarding last night, I couldn't exactly determine what you were up to, so, I gave you a bit of a harsh warning before I went to bed. I do believe you meant well. I am One of Many (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. My understanding of the policies linked to above is that if proper attribution is given in both the edit summaries and article talk pages - which I believe it is - then that is sufficient attribution. Since Transitions (novel series) was not fully broken up into three articles and still exists as a standalone article, I'm having a hard time understanding why its edit history should be merged with anything. 2601:D:9400:448:2C73:D434:5FC:23F4 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Dorje Shugden controversy[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Elassint. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)