User talk:EliasAlucard/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

RoP

Hi,

Great to meet an Assyrian. I sponsor an Assyrian Family in Iraq (about $30 a month), and understand their plight.

I see you have edited the page Religion of peace to remove "sincerely" and replace it with "seriously" . This implies the other web sites are not serious. (In the same way as I suppose there was an implication the other side is not sincere). We have to think of another word, more (NPOV) any thoughts? Mike Young 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your help, very appreciated! God bless you.
Yes, I thought it wasn't very NPOV when it said "sincerely" because that implies Islam actually is a religion of "peace" when in reality, Islam is a religion of war; everyone knows this. So I changed it into "seriously" as opposed to "sarcastic," but you're right, we have to use a better word. How about "in a taqiyya manner"? :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:57 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
I have had to remove your link to JahidWatch. We cannot put it in here as it does not use the phrase "religion of peace" as such. It should be in Criticism of Islam However, if you can find some page discussing why Islam is not a relgion of peace, feel free to add it to the third column. But the page must have "religion of peace" in the title. Please continue to edit Wikipedia. Your views are valued. Mike Young 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh okay. I just thought since Robert Spencer wrote a book called Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, that would suffice. But anyway, here are some articles you can help me out with, if you want:
I created them recently, but I need some help with the insan kamil one, since it got locked over content dispute (some Muslims were trying to remove sources). I think it's very important that we expand these two articles greatly. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:03 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. If I could show this to my fellow British citizens in England, perhaps they would stop being so blind. If only all Assyrians were as knowledgeable and as proud. Tourskin 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks man, I take that as a compliment! — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:05 17 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Mike Young has smiled at you! He says


Mike Young 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

dude, this is the funniest ever. Have you heard of conservapedia? Its the biggest and worst flop ever. Check this out but don't bother wasting ur energy editting it:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Assyrians

There articles are totally defunct and the website beyond hope of repair. But its funny to see this, no?Tourskin 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it before. It's run by "right-wing" Christians? They're such a joke. Have you seen "Jesus Camp"? I feel embarrassed to be a Christian after that joke of a documentary. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:00 18 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen it but at least they try to promote christianity, so I find the effort admirable. What I do find very hypocritical though is that most of these evangelical churches reject the ecumenical councils during the Roman times as "misguided human interpretation". They believe that they, 2,000 years later of their own accord know better than bishops and priests who were far closer to the times of Jesus. So whose using human interpretations then? Tourskin 06:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and dude, there seems to be alot of people out there that are out to get you. Which is horrible. You have a friend in me! (Lets not get all mushy and think of Toy Story). Just this morning some @#$% body told me that I had made an inappropriate talk page use. I mean, come on, they need to find better things to do. Well I managed to get the guy to drop it. Yeh so how r u lol. Tourskin 06:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
They should use a less blasphemous name for the camp. Tourskin 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen it but at least they try to promote christianity, so I find the effort admirable. — Believe me, just like that asshole Dubya, they're causing more damage to Christianity rather than generating sympathy. They believe that they, 2,000 years later of their own accord know better than bishops and priests who were far closer to the times of Jesus. — Yes, I've always found that stupid about Protestants. Oh and dude, there seems to be alot of people out there that are out to get you. — You tell me... They should use a less blasphemous name for the camp. — It's not the name that bothers me, it's the religious fanaticism coming from these "Right Wing Zionist Christians" that's irrationally stupid. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:27 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
lol dude, check this out: http://www.mrdowling.com/603-assyrians.html hilarious at how shitty that writing is. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:30 09 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Lol they don't know how toread but somehow conquer mesopotamia, build damns, build chariots, use soldiers, use coins to pay soldiers, count the coins, forge iron but don't know how to read. I thought wikipedia was bad. So how have you been lol. Tourskin 03:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah man, I'm fine. Where have you been though? — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:54 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello EliasAlucard. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding inclusion of quotes. The discussion can be found under the topic Nazism. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

--Schwalker 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:56 18 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Hello EliasAlucard. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding nazi eugenics. The discussion can be found under the topic Eugenics. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. --Schwalker 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once again for the notification. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:57 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Please check out Azeri people and Uzbek people. Does that not show a better view of an ethnic group?. The current picture has been there to long and I think it need a change Juju78 05:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, you're right about the picture having been there for too long, but the reason we're using this picture is because it showcases Assyrians who are part of our history. There has been talks about voting in some better picture. No consensus for now though. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:36 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Well I see, if you want to keep the four notable person style then fine but I think you should re-propose changing the picture. Juju78 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but it's not really up to me. Also, no offence, but I think that picture looks stupid :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:12 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Yes maybe it was a little stupid but take a look at this picture, this is a much better I think. With Assyrian national costumeJuju78 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better, but they still look ridiculous if you ask me :) Ask the others on the Template talk:Infobox Assyrians if this picture is okay. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:06 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Arab Christians

Shlama, I have translated the source name. I thought there was no need to do that since the book was written in Arabic :) Best regards--Aziz1005 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

3rr on eugenics

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on eugenics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Proper tea is theft 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't crossed 3RR, in fact, I've only been working on the article. I've used rollback a couple of times, but not 3RR. Nice try though. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:07 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
You're at your third reversion; the use of rollback to accomplish this is irrelevant. If you revert again, you will have violated WP:3RR. I am just posting a warning on your talk page, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Proper tea is theft 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, it's not 3RR. You are removing content because of inaccurate reasons. I am using rollback, and I am editing the article. 3RR means actual reverts repeated simultaneously. Also, your reasons for removing the content is totally false. The content is properly sourced. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:12 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
And now you've made your 4th revert. Could you please undo your last change?--Proper tea is theft 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:48 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eugenics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop edit warring on all the articles you're warring on, now. No more edits. Just discuss until you deal with whatever you're arguing about, ok? Gscshoyru 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Problem is, I'm not the one running around and deleting sourced content, he is. You need to tell him to stop. Have you seen his edits and how he's blanking sourced content? He is out of control. You should block him. Also, I am discussing it on the talk pages and providing several scholarly sources, which obviously, aren't good enough for him simply because he doesn't like the content. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:18 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Then if he continues, he will be blocked. But if you continue, so will you. So stop, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you just going to accept that he's removed half of this article despite that it's sourced? Look, I care about the quality of the article's and I'm an inclusionist, I just can't accept someone running around and deleting whatever content he doesn't like and calls it WP:OR without giving proof for it. You should revert that section because it has a lot of valuable and sourced content. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:22 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not -- check the article again. Note that some of what he removed was unsourced, though... so he did have the right to remove it. But because he removed cited content as well, it's been reverted. Gscshoyru 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert, I agree that the unsourced content needs to be sourced, that is why we need to add {{fact}} tags where it isn't sourced. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:26 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha... I have to go now... but I'm sure others are aware of what's going on. I'll check back in after class. Gscshoyru 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I'll make sure to do what I can. Good luck in class ;) — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:30 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Haemo 01:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EliasAlucard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Haemo has inaccurately misjudged these rollbacks as 3RR (intentionally or not, I do not know), when in actual fact, I was working on the article, while the content was removed repeatedly by a problem user who has not received a block for his constant removal of sourced content (taking sides here, eh?). The versions reverted by me are all different from each other, and thus it cannot be counted as 3RR. Haemo is just taking his chance here to block me for the spite of it. I strongly request at least two different and impartial admins to review this block.

Decline reason:

You have the longest 3RR block log I have ever seen. This, and your unfounded assumption of bad faith on the part of the blocking admin, leads me to believe that you have a serious problem with our rules about collaborative editing. If you do not work on this, your next blocks may be much longer. Even if you did not technically violate 3RR (which you apparently did; see below), the block is valid for edit warring. — Sandstein 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Looks pretty straightforward to me. Furthermore, you went to 3RR again today and have six blocks in less than four months for similarly disruptive behavior (not counting the times you were unblocked). You should probably thank Haemo for only going 72 hours. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm going to be blocked for this, then User:Tazmaniacs must also be blocked for the same reason because he was edit-warring more than me. He kept removing content which I and others reinserted. And no, it wasn't I who broke 3RR. The reason why I got unblocked was because it wasn't 3RR, same thing this time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:52 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
I only see three edits to that page by Tazmaniacs in the last several days. You can't violate 3RR with only three edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While those version may not be exactly the same, they're substantially identical, and you knew exactly what you were doing in re-inserting them. Changing a few words, or what have you is not enough to avoid the disruption that edit warring causes. You've been warned for this before. I'm not "taking sides" here; I have no horse in this race, and I don't care about any of this beyond the simple fact that the editors on these pages can't stop edit warring over them. This includes you, and I'd prefer if you didn't claim I was "acting out of spite". --Haemo 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you insinuating, Haemo? Have you even followed that entire edit dispute? On the talk page, Scwalker complained that the sources we're not adequate. Because of that, he removed an entire sourced section. I restored the section, and immediately it was removed. I restored it again, and then I provided and improved the sources for it while it was constantly being removed. Also, it seems to me you're doing this out of spite. You seem quite pissed off here and you shouldn't take out your aggressions on me. If you're going to block me for this, you should block all involved accounts, or else, you're singling me out here and that's unfair and you know it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:56 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
None of this addresses the edit warring. I'm not passing judgement, or even giving my opinion, on what the content issue is here. I'm telling everyone to knock off the edit warring — and specifically involves the three revert rule. I'm not "taking it out on you" because I'm not upset; you're reading way too much into my comments, and text is notoriously bad at conveying emotion. If any other accounts violated the three revert rule, then you should report them to WP:AN3; but don't edit war with them! --Haemo 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fact remains however: it wasn't 3RR. I did not restore it to the same version more than 3 times, they were different versions. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:02 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you may want to re-read WP:3RR. All reverts you make in said period are counted. Sorry, but you did violate it -- and you have to pay the consequences... Gscshoyru 02:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how the diff provided above proves that Haemo is pissed off at you. It sounds like he was pissed off at the edit warring in general, and with good reason. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
He took his chance and blocked me because of it. I was involved in that edit dispute, and he blocked only me, despite the fact that Tazmaniacs reverted edits restored by multiple editors. He hasn't even given Tazmaniacs a warning, he just blocked me right away. Clearly, Haemo is not the impartial admin he's trying to be. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:12 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Tazmaniacs has not violated the 3RR. You have. He didn't give him a warning because I already had. Hamero's decision to block you, based on the evidence given, was totally objective. Both you and Tazmaniacs are edit warring, but you actually did violate policy, while he did not. There's no need to bring baseless accusations against admins into this. Gscshoyru 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see here:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

123 and that's not counting the other times he removed my edits. But hey, just turn a blind eye. Never mind Tazmaniacs' block log. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:31 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

More than three. Not just three, but more than three. And though he is acting badly, he did not violate policy, yet. Gscshoyru 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

After seeing your edits, argues, edit wars, the way you talk and the fascism template you got on you userpage. I feel you are a Facist ;) Simenged 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, no, not at all. I'm interested in fascism related topics however. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:44 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Oh thanks, at laset you are the only one who have welcomed me. The reason why I just jumped up on your userpage and popped out claims is because every topic I am interested in, you have been in edit conflict, but hey it's how Wikipedia work, for everyone to edit anyway I am actually interested in Mesopotamia old empires ofcourse they are all vanished by Arabs. I have noticed each Year there have been revival of unknown minorities in Arab lands like back in the 70s very few in the West did know anything about Barbers and now Assyrians/Chandeals/Syriacs/Maronites are coming forward. May history repeat? :) Simenged 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
May history repeat? — Hopefully, the Assyrians will rise again. And we've been around for a long time in the Middle East. It's just that we were known under our religious names back then (Nestorians, Jacobites, etcetera; the Maronites still use their religious name, "Maronite"). If you read for instance the Carmelites in Persia, you'll see where Pope Paul V mentions the Jacobites as Assyrians. That was back in 1612. So, how come you're interested in the same topics as I am? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:52 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Well I have very limited knowledge regarding the modern day Assyrians but i would say Maronites may be in some cases Assyrians. However they don’t have an own dialect of Aramaic to support this. Maronites often claim descendants from the ancient Phoenician and by crusader, very few would say Assyrian. I have no idea why we are interested in same topic but I have no love for fascist topics so I would not say that we share all same interest--Simenged 11:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Maronites used to speak Aramaic before the Arabization. See Walid Phares book for more about this: Lebanese Christian Nationalism: The Rise and Fall of an Ethnic Resistance. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:27 13 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Code of the Assura

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Code of the Assura, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/readings/assyriancode.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was public domain, as the source states. Cool bot though ;) — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:32 09 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Code of the Assura

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Code of the Assura, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. andy 11:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

George Francis

Hey their khon. I was wondering if you would start an article about the Assyrian hero George Francis. I found two Swedish articles about him [[2]] and [[3]], perhaps you can translate key points and create an article out of it. I think the Assyrian youth needs to know about people like these. Its people like these that will get a population to be nationalistic again. Chaldean 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahuno, I'd love to, but that is either Dutch or Deutsch, and I understand neither. We need an Assyrian editor who can speak these languages. You're mistaking http://www.huyodo.com/ for http://www.hujada.com/ :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:11 12 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • They're both in German. I could translate some of it, but my German is far from perfect. Oh, and I'm not Assyrian, but that should be irrelevant. Funkynusayri 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. You're welcome to help out :) I hope this will improve our collaboration on future Assyrian/Arab related projects ;) — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:03 12 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      • Could be nice. Where shall I post the translations when and if I complete them? Funkynusayri 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • George Francis (Assyrian) should be fine, post them on the talk page, I'll try to find out more about him from Assyrians in Sweden. Let's continue this on the his articles talk page. Oh and Funky, thanks for this. Very appreciated that you're helping out. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:28 12 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem, I like Assyrians. I'm kinda sad the rest of us got Arabised! Funkynusayri 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye, I'll ask German editor Der Hexer for confirmation of the accuracy of the translations once I'm done. The articles seem a bit biased, so I don't know how other editors will feel about them being used as references. Funkynusayri 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Arabic-speaking Syriacs

Knock what off? Adding facts to Wikipedia? Have you ever visited Mardin? Ever talked to Syriacs from Mardin? Qeltu Arabic has been their mother tongue for centuries, as it has been in Kilith, for example, and hence is a native language of the Western Syriacs, many of whom do not know Turoyo. In fact, Kurdish should also be added to the list, since Syriacs in Kfarburan (now known as Dargeçit) were speaking Kurdish as their first language so that Kurdish was even used in the Syriac Orthodox church in that place. Speaking Arabic, Kurdish, or Turkish does not make a Syriac stop being Syriac.

I guess you don't like Arabs very much, but that should not make you ignore the truth. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that there are Assyrians who speak Arabic. I am one of them (I speak the Lebanese dialect). In fact, I don't know much of the Syriac language (just a little), because my mother is half-Armenian, half-Suryoyo, and her Syriac as well as her Armenian isn't that good, so she taught me Lebanese instead. If we are going to add all the languages we speak beside our native language, the list goes on and on and on. We might as well add Swedish and English too, because there are probably more of us who speak these languages better than Arabic. Arabic, like Turkish or Persian, is beside the point, it is not important to cover. No, we shouldn't add Turkish, Kurdish or whatever other languages we speak. By the way, Benne, isn't it time for you to come out of the closet and admit that you are a Syriac Orthodox from Turkey? I have no idea why you're denying it, but it's simply too blatantly obvious that you are a Suryoyo Oromoyo evangelist. By the way, Arabization isn't the same as being the native language. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:41 12 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see why I should. I have not denied nor confirmed anything you've suggested concerning my identity, because I don't think it's of any relevance. I believe the fact that you so strongly believe you descend from the ancient Assyrians (which you may, if you asked me), is a burden which disallows you to look at your own people with a neutral point-of-view. Keep your identity (or that of other contributors) out of discussions, and stick to the facts. Shlome, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You're a Suryoyo who denies it because you think it makes you more "NPOV." Why else would you care so much about this if it weren't for your obvious Syriac ancestry? As for my NPOV, I'm simply not religiously biased like you Suryoyo Oromoyo evangelists are. That said, I'm fifty times more objective than all of you together. The only reason why you want to be Aramaeans, is not because you are Aramaeans, but because you think you become a holy people by pretending to be the people of Jesus. Here Benne, have a look at this. Pathetic. Your identity is of tremendous importance, because it reveals your bias (and you are, in fact, extremely biased). You're not NPOV for a second. I'm playing with open cards here, so is User:Chaldean, you on the other hand, aren't. There's no way any Dutch guy would ever care that much about this naming dispute as you do. You're not fooling anyone by pretending to be some European or Turkish user. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:12 13 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I've never denied nor confirmed anything you've suggested concerning my identity, and I won't, just because I believe it's irrelevant. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Look Benne, I'm not an idiot, all right? You are hiding something, amd you are definitely using lies as far as this naming dispute goes. You are simply repeating the same lies as John Joseph is repeating. And you know it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:04 20 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is borderline histerical... We're Syrians. Fuck English. We're Sourayeh. Weather you want to Say Assyrian or Syriac doesn't matter they both lead to the same people and even Chaldeans don't say Kaldayeh in Syriac they say Sourayeh. Weather or not some want to say Assyrian or Syriac is irrelevant. It all points to the same people. Now Aramean may have been used historically is irrelevant if some wish to be labeled as such then that's their chosing. Chaldean is accepted even though it's disputed by most and even Assyrian is disputed by some and Aramean is relatively new in this argument but nevertheless we are SYRIAN as stated in Syriac "Sourayeh" or "Souryoyeh" depending on the dialect of Neo-Aramaic." Sharru Kinnu III 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we are Suroyo/Suryoyo/Suraya/Suryaya, which translates to Syrians, in our case, Assyrians (read Herodotus, Strabo and Justinus). It's just recently, since the 1970's, some fucking idiots amongst us are trying to make Suryoyo and Oromoyo into synonyms. We never called ourselves Aramaeans before that. By the way, if Benne isn't a Suryoyo as he claims, then he has some serious personal issues. Because he has for over 2 years now, ever since he began editing on Wikipedia, almost 90% of his edits, been trying to Aramaize Assyrian related topics, to no avail. Talk about obsession. I would have more understanding for your fanatic obsession in this topic if you were a Suryoyo, but if you're not, well, your wasted preoccupied time with this subject, is bordering an unhealthy obsession. You shouldn't let those Syriacs use you as their useful idiot. Seek help man. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:28 17 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I don't understand his problem anymore... We have been stating that Aramaeans merged with the Assyrians so why now are people like him trying to seperate them. Sharru Kinnu III 12:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, truth is Sharru, they are separatists, historical revisionists, and religious fanatics. They have this psychopathic obsession with the Aramaic language, to the extent, that they no longer can see clearly. I think it goes without saying, that all Assyrians are proud speakers of Aramaic, mostly, because it is associated with Jesus. But in the case of the Oromoyo fanatics, they think that by claiming that they are Aramaeans, they will be closer to Jesus. Because of that, they claim that he was an Aramaean and not a Jew (obviously a blatant lie). I don't know how it is where you live, but here in Sweden we have a lot of Aramaeanists, but they are mostly limited to Sweden, Germany and Netherlands. Other than that, they aren't many, because there are many Assyrian nationalist Suryoyos in their own church. Either way, the main motivation to their bias, is religious fanaticism. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:28 18 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Sounds to me like Neo-Nazi influences from that region of wanting do distance one's self from Judaism... What history points to Jesus being Aramaean? He spoke Aramaic. That sounds like the same argument they make for us. We speak Aramaic therefore we must be Aramaean. Just like Pan-Arabism or Baathism. An Arab is an Arabic speaker born in an Arab country... Geez, I don't see nothing wrong with that [sarcasm]. Sharru Kinnu III 15:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying for a while now. It is very similar to Hitler's Positive Christianity (Jesus depicted as an Aryan fighter and non-Jewish). Yes, that is their logic: we speak Aramaic, therefore, we must be Aramaeans. They are sick fucking psychopaths, I'm telling you. I've been in a few disputes with them, they are crazy. They will resort to violence over this stupid shit. Stupid maniacs and lunatics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:11 18 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Aramaen Maronites

Please read this article- Marada. then perhaps it will lead you to sources that will allow to supply the cite to the "citation needed" note you made.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:09 13 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Anti-genocide userboxes

Hi, I like the Anti-genocide denial userboxes on your page (the ones for the Armenian, Assyrian, and Pontic Greek genocides). I am quite interested in this period of history. Would it be alright with you if I borrowed the code for these boxes, to put on my own user page? --Eastlaw 07:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure, please do. Just copy {{User:EliasAlucard/Userboxes/ArmenianAssyrianGreekGenocide}} and put it somewhere on your User page. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:22 17 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Jewish subversion

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Jewish subversion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Phgao 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jewish subversion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jewish subversion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish subversion. Thank you. IZAK 09:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

EliasAlucard, I fear the article is going to be disappeared before anybody has a chance to update it and expand it. I really wikipedians needs to be brave and nominate/work to try and keep these contriversial articles in, otherwise the exercise will be a waste of time. I also think that the policies on this are not well written enough to ensure a fair hearing for a particular article. The same case could be seen for schools, some get through some don't. Also the historical context for some new thinking which is being created through ideas on the web, like web 2.0, social networks and new media outlets, like web comics, is not getting a fair shake. The policies need to be reviewed. I'll update the Jewish Subversion article over the next few weeks. scope_creep 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly appears so. I think that's a shame though. I understand it's a controversial subject, but I don't see how that should be a reason to delete it. If it gets deleted though, I will soapbox it and we can work on it from there, until it becomes an article worth keeping. Your help is appreciated. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:47 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jewish subversion

A tag has been placed on Jewish subversion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Yossiea (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting, even a redirect is forbidden. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 17:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenians

Hello Elias, the information that you moved to the Armenian people article is incorrect and is spread by a banned user User:Ararat_arev. You should revert yourself but not readd that to the Graeco-Aryan article. The ip that asked you to do that was one of his sockpuppets. He has been attacking Wikipedia all day today. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Template history of Armenia

Can you please put back the info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:History_of_Armenia from here, They removed the Nairi, and Hayk etc etc. from the Template History of Armenia. Can you please put it back? Just look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:History_of_Armenia in the edit history, Moosh88 had put the right info. Thank you. 63.16.171.158 02:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way Elias, (Im not the same guy Ararat_arev, which he thinks only one Armenian would know our history, isnt that kind of stupid?) this guy Eupator doesnt know about the info. He doesnt realize that you Assyrians, refer to us by "Armani" still to this day. He will also tell you something like "no you dont say that Elias", lol. Im serious he will say something like that, as he said its incorrect. He is half Italian, and so he doesnt seem to have a cousin even by the name Arman (which is the most common Armenian names, like Armen and Arman, the female version as I stated was Armin'e), which I do. I have a cousin named Arman, and you guys still call us by your ancient ancestors name Armani 216.175.100.233 04:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, all of you, stop reverting back and forth and deleting each other's comments! I do go through the edit history of my talk page, so it's pointless to erase comments. Yes, we Assyrians call Armenians 'Armani'. And I'm not entirely Assyrian, my grandmother is Armenian, so this concerns me as well. The anon user must understand that Graeco-Aryan language article is about a linguistic hypothesis regarding Greeks and Iranians, not about Armenian's ethnic designation. So stop adding that information there. And Assyrians call Armenians either Armani or Armenaya, depending on dialect. Not quite sure about Armenaya though, I can ask around. But Armani is what Armenians are usually called. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:56 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you are right, another Assyrian user User:Chaldean I spoke with him even told me you guys call us "Armani", so yes you are right, Arabs also call us Armani, cause they got it from Assyrians first. Also Ermeni is what Kurds call us by the older records of "people" of "Ermenen", and later 'Erimena'. Pleaes put back the info that you put in Armenian people page, Eupator just doesnt realize, and he shows hypocrisy by taking and using images from http://www.armenianhighland.com Armenian Highland: History of Armenia site, for Armenians, which he will tell you that site has all false info, when he even takes info and images from that site. You see the hypocrisy of this guy? He will also try to tell you Im the guy from Armenian Highland's site, that guy doesnt even bother with Wikipedia, cause he already has his huge site of all our History. So this guy Eupator will tell you Im the guy from that site, lol, I just started getting realy into our history like 2 years ago, so let him go figure. Also, the reason why Wikipedia is always in first links of Google.com, is cause peopel keep editing the site, keep changing things back and forth, not cause its "truth", thats its in front LOL, but rather people keep changing it back and forth, thats why, nhot cause of "truth". 76.246.27.208 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to find me WP:RS to cite. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:48 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Here is the sources that are already in another page ->> Source for Armani record --> page 92 of Schroeder's 1920 Keilschrifttexte aus Assur; W. F. Albright, A Babylonian Geographical Treatise on Sargon of Akkad's Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 45. (1925), p. 212.

Another mention by pharoah Thutmose III in the 33rd year of his reign (1446 BC) as the people of Ermenen, and says in their land "heaven rests upon its four pillars".

source for Ermenen record --- > International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915[4]; Eric H. Cline and David O'Connor (eds.) Thutmose III, University of Michigan, 2006, ISBN 978-0472114672.</re>

Here is the quote you had put, i put the sources:

The earliest record identified with Armenians, is from an inscription which mentions Armani[1], Արման (most common Armenians names Arman, the older variant of Armen, Արմեն) together with Ibla, as territories conquered by Naram-Sin (2300 BC) identified with an Akkadian colony in the Diarbekr region. To this day the Assyrians refer to Armenians by this form Armani. Another mention by Thutmose III of Egypt, mentions the people of Ermenen in 1446 BC, and says in their land "heaven rests upon its four pillars".[2] (Thutmose was the first Pharoah to cross the Euphrates to reach the Armenian Highlands). To this day Kurds and Turks refer to Armenians by Ermeni.

Historically, the name Armenian has come to internationally designate this group of people from the most common Armenian names: Arman, Արման (Armenians use Arman, the older variant of Armen, Արմեն), Armen, and Armin'e (female name). Armenians call themselves Hay (Հայ, pronounced Hye; plural: Հայեր, Hayer). The word has traditionally been linked to the name of the legendary founder of the Armenian nation, Haik, which is also a popular Armenian name.[3][4]

Problem is, you only lose credibility when you keep on reinserting this content into the Graeco-Aryan language article.[5] I don't know if I should trust you that this is accurate facts. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:15 29 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, the reason my friend here keeps inserting to Greco-Aryan, cause every other place they keep reverting with ignorance. We dont want it in Greco-Aryan language page, we just need it in the Armenian people, Armenia name section, and the History Template which had the other Armenian history removed. Yet they keep Assyrians history, Persians history, etc etc. That is a double standard you think?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.11.202 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ page 92 of Schroeder's 1920 Keilschrifttexte aus Assur; W. F. Albright, A Babylonian Geographical Treatise on Sargon of Akkad's Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 45. (1925), p. 212.
  2. ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915[1]; Eric H. Cline and David O'Connor (eds.) Thutmose III, University of Michigan, 2006, ISBN 978-0472114672.
  3. ^ "Haik and Hayastan". Retrieved 2007-03-04.
  4. ^ "Armenia Provinces". Retrieved 2007-03-04.

POV edits

EliasAlucard, please make the effort to ensure any suggested changes adhere to our content policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:OR before making them - thereby ensuring they are neutral, directly topical, and well-sourced. this has not been done with edits such as these.[6][7] ITAQALLAH 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are NOT POV edits. Are you playing stupid or did you actually look up the sources? Here's what the articles say:
The word islām is derived from the Arabic verb aslama, which means to accept, surrender or submit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Etymology_and_meaning
Aslim Taslam (Arabic: أسلم تسلم) is a phrase meaning "accept Islam and you will be saved".[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aslim_Taslam
And you claim these two words are UNRELATED? Please, I wasn't born yesterday. As for your revert here, look, the guy, your so-called "prophet", Muhammad, was a murderer. He did kill people. This is an indisputable historical fact. You have a hard time accepting this fact, but that is not my problem. The Jerusalem Post, states clearly here, Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives. The Jerusalem Post is a WP:RS. You will have to accept this source, unless you can find a source where Muhammad wrote that he said Aslim Taslam and meant it as an invitation to a party or club membership. Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you could stop WP:OWNing the article with your POV bias; your taqiyya reverts, are not neutral and unacceptable on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:02 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Aslim Taslam is simply a phrase, it's got nothing to do with the etymology of the word Islam. it is using your own original research that you have concluded the link. tfd.com is not a reliable source, nor does it explain the etymological significance of Aslim Taslam, it is simply a pretext to advertise on Islam the POV edits you have conducted elsewhere. while JP is indeed a reliable source for news, i don't think it would be considered an expert resource for the details on Islamic history. please also consider remaining civil instead of using inflammatory language and taunts. ITAQALLAH 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ilya Salkind with Susannah York.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ilya Salkind with Susannah York.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Yvonne Ruwaida.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Yvonne Ruwaida.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish subversion. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously think this was a constructive edit? It shouldn't be there since it's not part of the discussion. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:56 04 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect capitializations

You are incorrect when you claim that ideologies are supposed to be capitalized. Words such as fascism, communism, socialism, anarchism and neo-Nazism only need to be capitalized if they are at the beginning of a sentence, part of the name of a political group, or in the title of a book or article.Spylab 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this corroborating your claim? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:20 06 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Only pretty much every text written on political ideologies, and standard English grammar practices. You are the one who is going against the consensus.Spylab 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I ask you: do you have a source for that? There are lots of English sites who write with capital letters on ideologies. If you have a source where it says that in proper English, you shall not capitalize political ideologies, that will suffice for me. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:44 06 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
  • You are the one who is going against the consensus that has been reached on Wikipedia and in most publications. As I mentioned above, all of the articles about isms (i.e. anarchism, capitalism, communism, nationalism, fascism, anti-fascism, militant anti-fascism, socialism) on Wikipedia use lowercase spellings, unless the word is at the beginning of a sentence, part of the name of a political group, part of a title, or an error of inconsistency. If you want to mess around with agreed-upon capitalization guidelines, you are the one who needs to provide reliable and convincing evidence that the traditional capitalizations should be thrown out, and get consensus on talk pages before making those radical changes.Spylab 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism is an ideology

Neo-Nazism, is in fact, and ideology. Nazism is an ideology, and neo-Nazism is simply a newer version of that ideology.Spylab 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Neo-Nazism is not an ideology. It is not a newer version of that ideology. Ask Neo-Nazis, and they will not tell you "Hey, I'm a Neo-Nazi". They will tell you, "I'm a National Socialist." They follow pretty much the exact same ideology as the one in Nazi Germany. It's only the outside world who calls them Neo-Nazis. Either way, you will have to source it from the main article, if you can't do that, it will be removed. And please have in mind, your opinion is not a fact. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:46 06 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
If that was the case, then we should delete the Neo-Nazism article, because hey, it's just the exact same as Nazism and doesn't warrant its own separate article. Again you are going against the consensus that has been reached on Wikipedia. The only reason some neo-Nazis call themselves "National Socialists" is that the term doesn't sound as nasty as "Nazi", and lets them avoid some of the stigma associated with Nazi Germany (which most neo-Nazis do not wish to exactly duplicate, despite your uncited claim to the contrary).Spylab 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you read? From your own source:

The term Neo-Nazism is used to refer to any social or political movement seeking to revive National Socialism or a form of Fascism, and which postdates the Second World War. Often, especially internationally, those who are part of such movements do not use the term to describe themselves. They eschew such terms as "Neo-Nazism" and "Neo-Fascism" for a variety of reasons: tactical avoidance of the stigma associated with these terms; actual ideological distinctiveness from Nazism and Fascism; or a rejection of the "neo" prefix, based on a wish to project unequivocal commitment to Fascism or National Socialism. The prefix is not universally used to describe Neo-Nazi groups, but some groups specifically endorse it.

It is a movement trying to revive National Socialism. What is National Socialism? An ideology. National Socialism/Nazism doesn't refer to Hitler's party, it refers to the ideology implemented and practised by Hitler and his cohorts. And not single one of your sources, describe National Socialist Front's ideology as "Neo-Nazism", they call it a Neo-Nazi organisation, but never do they call its ideology, "Neo-Nazism". In my honest opinion, you should not edit Nazi related articles because you have reading difficulties and you don't know much about the ideology. Unbelievable. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:20 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Oh and by the way: The only reason some neo-Nazis call themselves "National Socialists" is that the term doesn't sound as nasty as "Nazi", and lets them avoid some of the stigma associated with Nazi Germany (which most neo-Nazis do not wish to exactly duplicate, despite your uncited claim to the contrary). — This is pure and utter bullshit. They call themselves National Socialists because that is what their ideology is actually called. Not once did Hitler call himself "Nazi", Nazism is a slang popularized by the allies. The reason why they don't call themselves Nazis is because a) it's incorrect, and b) they don't like it. Take my word for it, we have a lot of Nazis in Sweden and I know this subject better than you do. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:25 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Every single one of my five references refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology. Every single one of my six references in the National Socialist Front article refer to that party as neo-Nazi. Like the original Nazism, it is both an ideology and a movement. Removing factual information backed up by reliable sources can be considered vandalism and POV-pushing, and lead to your account being blocked. Spylab 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You call that vandalism again, and you accuse me of vandalism over a content dispute, you might get blocked yourself. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:26 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Every single one of my five references refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology. — Yes, because its ideology is National Socialism. They are seeking to revive this ideology. They don't have a unique ideology different from the original Nazism in Germany back in the 30's. Is this so impossible to understand? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:48 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Only four of my five references call neo-Nazism an ideology:

Image

Please help me in saving this image [[8]]. I don't know nothing about tags/wikicommons, etc. Chaldean 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:29 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Nazism

Would you please see my comments at Talk:Nazism#.22Category_attack.22? I would like a discussion, not an edit war. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I appreciate the notification. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:20 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Warning about personal attacks

The following message is in response to your personal attack in your edit note in the neo-Nazism article:Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Spylab 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mede Article Reverts

What are we going to do about this mede edit warring, or what I would claim to be vandalism by users we rv considering that medes are not kurds. It's getting tedious to revert User:82.173.161.165 everday and other similar, perhaps even sock puppet users. I would suggest for a start adding more Vandal, Long term pattern of vandalism, Potentially violating the three revert rule, Introducing deliberate factual errors, warning templates to the user talk page (or other poten. socks) when and if the article is being abused. This would give us a better base for referral for semi-protection or blockage of the abusive/pov edit waring accounts. -Kain Nihil 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The Medes article needs to be semi-protected, and we must also deal with History of the Kurdish people and other similar articles where they've basically made it into an unquestionable fact that Kurds are Medes. It's of course possible that modern Kurds do have to some degree a shared ancestry with the ancient Medes, but it's nowhere like they're trying to make it. In reality, Kurds are a miscegenation of many different peoples from the Middle East, with a certain amount of Indo-Aryan lineage. The language is still Indo-Aryan, but the Kurdish race is very mixed. They are probably more Semitic than Indo-Aryan. I made the article slightly more NPOV,[9] let me know what you think of it. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:34 09 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
I've made it a bit more acceptable for my knowledge. Indeed the Medes gene pool could be found in the Kurds, yet the DNA proof does not exist. The problem is that all peoples around the area of the Medes are genetically related. If the Mede article were to show all affiliated modern ethnicity groups then the list would be +30, which would clutter the article (and thus all other ethno/hist. articles which is unrealistic). I'm pretty sure you could find "scholarly references" to all nearby ethnicity descendents , which is why I have a problem with the user claiming they are the direct descendents and presenting the Kurd name for Mede. I've read a lot into the history of the Medes though I know more about Elam and I have never encountered that the Medes would later become Kurds only that they were an ancient Iranian people with no large migrations off of the Zagros mountains into modern day Kurdistan. By the way the Wikipedia community semi-protects articles in rare circumstance of which the Mede article problems are very far from at the moment. -Kain Nihil 10:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you could say even modern Persians in Iran are just as much related to Medes, and probably even more so than the Kurds. It's kind of funny though how the Kurds are trying to copyright the Medes. Anyway, there's a lot of work that needs to be done on these articles, for instance, Origins of the Kurds. The Kurds are also trying to rewrite history on other articles, like Adiabene and so on. This is very much related to modern politics in the Middle East; by using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, they're trying to make some legitimacy in their claim of occupying "Kurdistan." So in other words, these articles suffer from heavy NPOV issues. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:57 09 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Unbelievable. ~Jeeny (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Assyria (Persian province)

Hey man long time no chat. Uni has been a pain and all. Well anyways I can see this baby being an FA even though its quite small, I have seen much worse FA's like articles about chicken fires or a bus conversation and believe that this one kicks all their asses put together. Well, peace!!Tourskin 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that article totally rules. We need to do some more work on Assyria related articles. — Superman (talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol I still haven't fulfilled my promise of helping out the Neo-Assyrian Empire article. Tourskin 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally think we should try to FA the Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire article. That one makes us look totally badass. Ashurnasirpal's butchering of anyone who fucked around with him, totally rules. And lest we forget, Ashurbanipal's destruction of Susa gives me a boner that reeks of badassness! The world must understand that Assyrians are fucking Terminators. LOL! — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol dude. I agree. However the GA review of Assyria Persian Province is dieing quickly. I have asked for it to be on hold for a week and hopefully I can address some issues and have it passed. Tourskin 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done all I can. I had to make it sound neutral by adding in the nonesense that the Arameanist trolls add lol but if you can stuff in please do. Tourskin (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What? Aramaeanism is not historical facts man. We haven't called ourselves Aramaeans. It started in the 1970s. And we certainly didn't call ourselves Aramaeans during that Persian period. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Requested Move

Hi Elias,

I saw your comment here. Can you elucidate?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 15.11.2007 08:22

Yes, you screwed up the request move procedure by doing it inaccurately. I'll try to fix it for you. — Simon Belmont (talk · contribs) 10:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw your edit and self-revert. As you may have guessed, I want a discussion and not a poll. Since this is about policy and not about taste, a vote count wouldn't have any influence. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 15.11.2007 11:05
Oh I see. Well, if that's the case, then I guess I was mistaken. But it's possible to discuss it as well since the template adds a discussion section. — Elias (talk · contribs) 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: KV62 -> Tomb of Tutankhamen

Thank you for adding your opinion/vote to the Talk:KV62 re: KV62 -> Tomb of Tutankhamen. I wanted to solicit opinions/votes from those I thought might have a real interest in the issue. Ultimately the main thrust of the argument for centers around WP:NC, which I think is being too broadly applied in this instance (but that's my opinion). Though I read more oppose votes than for, in the end there was no consensus (a simple majority may not apply in this case) to move, so there's every chance the debate will continue sometime in the future. Cheers! Captmondo 11:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Could you expand on why a majority of votes didn't apply in this case? — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 11:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Assyria-Germany connection

Have a look at the talk page, maybe it is interesting.---- DanielMrakic (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Poetic Genius Society

A tag has been placed on Poetic Genius Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DGG (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians in Iraq

Thanks. May I ask why you notified me about this? I mean, why me of all editors? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you Iraqi Assyrian? The answer is yes, then thats the reason :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.98.178 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not an Iraqi Assyrian. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Abe_foxman_claw.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Abe_foxman_claw.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Temper, temper mon Capitaine!

Hey there.

You might want to take a good, deep breath before you comment further about Neo-Nazism. Your obvious growing impatience and frustration is affecting your tone, and you're coming across as increasingly less civil.

Spylab is interpreting some of your more acerbic comments as personal attacks and has taken the matter to ANI; I don't think you've crossed the line but I'm afraid that as the discussion heats up you might loose your temper entirely.

Remember: It's just Wikipedia.  :-) — Coren (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know. It is indeed very frustrating trying to explain something as basic as that, while he keeps arguing against me like a defiant child, pretending he doesn't understand what I'm saying. At first I tried to be civil, but after 2 weeks of constant discussion about this, and the article getting locked twice, my patience is running out. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

philosemite

Hi,
no prob. Just give a reference. There are ones for eugenism and for race and intelligence. Ceedjee (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Given your past on administrator notice board, you shoud refrain from starting editwar and imposing your pov.
You want to add a pov, you give a reference to this. That's all. Ceedjee (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any link with "philosemitism"; this is a highly controversial and dangerous pov that should be sourced. ; I add eugenism)[10] — You really ought to ask yourself who's imposing his POV in the article. And do not try to get a cheap point by bringing up WP:ANI. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[11]
This is the second personnal attack.
If you are not able to participate to a collaborative project, you should refrain from editing wikipedia.
Ceedjee (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Second? When was the first one? And please, do not WP:OWN the article by using reasons such as "dangerous POV". It won't get you anywhere. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The first one was top of this page.
The second of is on the diff.
There is no WP:OWN. WP:OWNers can be recognized because they edit without warning others of their modifications and *I* warned you of my edits, which *you didn't*.
I have no time to lose with you.
Ceedjee (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but those comments weren't personal attacks, just stating the obvious. If you feel personally attacked however, that is a different matter. I have no time to lose with you. — Good, it's mutual. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop vandalising Kurdish (as well as Jewish) related articles. If you have a problem with such articles, please discuss them on the respective talk pages in a civiled manner instead of revert warring or adding void tags. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of vandalism again when it happens to be content disputes, and I will get you blocked for bad faith. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Elias Look for example at the page 736 of this book [The Heritage of Armenian Literatue - Page 736 Agop Jack Hacikyan, Gabriel Basmajian, Edward S. Franchuk, Nourhan Ouzounian] for a medieval armenian poem which talks about Medes (i.e. Kurds) in safavid era. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Google doesn't preview that specific page.[12] Do you perhaps have any url that does? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
From the aforementioned book:
They descended on Kurdistan,
Surrounded Baghesh and took it.
The palaces of the city
became camps for Ismail's men.
Before the Shah's army arrived,
The arrogant nation of the Medes
Had set fire to the whole country...
Brusk u Trishka (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. And how is that relevant to anything and how does that support your POV? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It does support the point that Armenians refered to Kurds as Medes, something previously you considered as possible OR. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not. Get me real sources that support the contention that Armenians, for instance, during the Ottoman empire called the Kurds "Medes." If you can get me WP:RS that support such a claim, I will allow it. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That Mackenzie article is proably the best proof, attested by major linguists such as Mackenzie himself concluding the Median language in question is Kurdish. Probably you did not read it accurately or missunderstood it. but please try again and read it. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Brusk, I still see no verifiable source that claims Kurds were called Medes by Armenians in modern times. Do not dodge the question. Please provide Armenian documents or similar sources that present the Kurds as Medes, in a modern context. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is not Mackenzie verifiable? Brusk u Trishka (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The claim was that Indeed Kurds' ancient ethnic neighbours, the Armenians, traditionally knew Kurds under the name Medes up to modern times. — Guess what, that is not supported by McKenzie.[13] Such a bold statement needs a verifiable source, like for instance, Armenian documents from 1920 where Armenians, call the Kurds, "Medes". If the Kurds were known as Medes by the Armenians in modern times, it should not be a problem for you to present such a source proving it. McKenzie is discussing something completely different. He is discussing the language of the Medes, and if it has any similarity to the language spoken by modern Kurds. Not if the Armenians called the Kurds by an ethnic designation such as Medes in modern times. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Mackenzie clearly concludes that the language Armenians referred to as language of Medes is actually the language of Kurds. By the way here is the third source:
[Revue des études arméniennes - Page 331
by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Société des études armeniennes - Armenian studies - 1964, Original from the University of California
One of the reasons for believing the Kurds to be descended from the Medes is the fact that ancient Armenian authors refer to both peoples by the same name.]
Brusk u Trishka (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mackenzie clearly concludes that the language Armenians referred to as language of Medes is actually the language of Kurds. — Where is his conclusion, and what evidence does he base that on? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Read again the article. I have introdiced firm evidence for my point. Please accept the reality. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read it. I cannot find a conclusion of his, that states that the Kurdish language is an evolution of the Median language. Look man, I'm not stupid, don't insult my intelligence by trying to make things up and expect me to fall for it. The closest thing he comes to Kurdish being Median, is an assumption: At first glance one would expect the 'language of Medians' to mean that of the Kurds, the only sizeable nation of the are not otherwise mentioned. — Don't interpret this vague assumption as Kurdish being Median as an indisputable fact. And he certainly doesn't claim that Armenians knew Kurds as Medes up until modern times. So do not even try to cite him using that source for your own original research. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You could also read here: with the normal Northern Kd. periphrastic passive 'came to crucifixation', shows that we have here also the verb hâtin "to come" (*â-gata-). pâkizh, pâqizh "clean, pure" and zaxm "strong" are common Northern Kd. words. It seems seems, therefore, that the text is to be read as *Pâkizh xudê, pâkizh zahm, pâkizh vêmarg, kôy hâtî xâchê izh kir ma, rrahmatê ma. A modern translation of "who was crucified" might read kô yê hâtî(a) salb kirinê, with the 'Demonstrative Izafe' yê serving as a relative pronoun. The koy of the text may well also contain a relative element -y, beside the subordinating particle kô. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And how is that a conclusion that Kurdish is Median? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
An intellegent neutral reader simply gets what Mackenzie is saying. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
An intellegent neutral reader simply gets what Mackenzie is saying. — Yes, and he would understand that Mackenzie did not conclude that Kurdish is indistinguishable from ancient Median. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it's spelled intelligent. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Warning"

Regarding this comment, please use a clean language and avoid accusations. Kurdish-POV warriors is really an unacceptable insult. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a Kurdish POV-warrior, and that is hardly an insult, since it happens to be the truth. And for the record, I've told you, stop calling it vandalism, or else I'll get you blocked for bad faith. And do not give me warnings like you were an authority on Wikipedia, especially when nothing wrong has been done. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right about that edit; If I had noticed it I would reverted it either. But please dont revert whole of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusk u Trishka (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It still contains grave, intentional, factual POV errors, and it will either be reverted or changed in order to conform to the facts. And if you continue revert-warring and/or calling it vandalism, you will be blocked. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity, political religion and Nazism

There are many more articles critizing Steigmann in the January 2007 issue of the Journal of Contemporary History, including Hexham, Piper and Gailus. Intangible2.0 (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No wonder, considering that he doesn't get his facts straight. Any examples? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. A passionate desire to depict ‘National Socialism’ as as emphatically Christian as possible runs like a thread throughout this often very densely argued book. This obsession seduces the author into a series of systematic blind spots about National Socialism as a whole, both its potential worldview as ‘text’ and, above all, its practice as deed and experience, as cult, ritual and symbol. Time and again he tends to over-generalize his often apposite partial findings. He clearly refuses to use important sources and relevant literature if they provide evidence contrary to his thesis. In addition, the study is afflicted by methodological defects and crass academic carelessness.
  2. The hypostatization of the state is not in doubt. But what is questionable is whether this leads to something which can be sensibly described as religion. It seems to me that the National Socialists rejected religion altogether. They were not prepared to tolerate loyalty to a higher being outside the State they controlled, however private those loyalties. They felt uncomfortable with anything based on aura, numinosity and the transcendental. Adolf Hitler wanted nothing which transcended the Third Reich.
Intangible2.0 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, highly appreciated. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This passionate desire to depict Nazism as a Christian ideology is also on the agenda of Richard Dawkins.[14] It's of course just another atheistic tactic used to make Christianity look bad. In reality, Hitler was not a Christian and favoured Indo-European religions (or 'Aryan' religions) since the 'worldview' of Nazism rejects a Semitic religions, especially Christianity, which has its roots in Judaism. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian name

An Assyrian child have been born but I wonder if you got any idea of a good Assyrian name for the child?.. thanks --Prettyempire 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it a girl or a boy? Shouldn't the child's parents know though? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The child's father is my brother, he just came up with a bunch of Arabic names... he did ask me of advice though. btw it's a boy.--Prettyempire 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh okay. So the mother is Assyrian I take it? Today, modern Assyrians typically have names such as Nahrin (and sometimes Beth-Nahrin, mostly for girls; Nineveh is also common for girls), Sargon, Sanharib, Ninos, Ninurta and even Marduk is found on some Assyrians. You could also try checking the Kings of Assyria and List of Kings of Babylon. Hope that helps. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and good luck with the kid :) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Aha thanks very useful.. but I wonder if Ramon are an Assyrian name? and another question?. is it common to use Ashurbanipal? --Prettyempire 08:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But it's common to use a female name, Reema (also spelled Rima). Not that it's related to Ramon... Ashur is very common, but Ashurbanipal specifically? I don't know. Maybe they baptise their kids Ashurbanipal, but then call them shortly just Ashur. Try asking User:Chaldean as well. He knows better than me what's common among contemporary Assyrian names (although, many of these names aren't that Assyrian; some are actually just Christian names). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-insan al-Kamil

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with those who feel the presence of your addition of a link to Robert Spencer's rebuttal to criticism made of him is not in accordance with Wiki's standards. It is not a primary resource that defines the meaning of the term. It simply a rebuttal by Spencer to criticism made of his comments. It is not in any way a systematic review of the term that is the topic of this entry. Furthermore, it appears that Spencer only refers to this term insofar as to justify other arguments regarding his interpretations of the imitation of the Prophet within Islamic Culture. He never has provided a cogent description of the concept within Islam in general (unlike many of the people that he refers to), much less the nuances of the definition within Islamic History, and Islamic piety in particular. If your goal is to criticize the concept, or the tradition surrounding it, the appropriate place is to place it in the entry on Criticism of Islam, or that of Robert Spencer. The imperative is that all articles concerning Islam within Wikipedia define the concepts that are inherent within the religion in and of itself; it is not an imperative to provide criticism of those elements by non-adherents in each and every entry- especially if it is derived from your POV to express you personal sectarian bias.

Furthermore, to address the claim you made in the history note: "External links does not mean we are citing Robert Spencer, it's an interesting debate regarding this specific topic, and should be kept here for others interested in the topic." Wiki's policy clearly states: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." As a result, you'll have to do better than that to justify inclusion, beyond how "interesting" you feel it may be. Please refer to 2 especially items 1,2, 12, 14. In fact, the link you posted is not a debate at all; Spencer has only responded to elements of criticism made of him, and the quotes are taken out of context. Furthermore, is the person to whom Spencer is responding a scholar of this topic, or just a blogger? As such, this can only be defined as a rebuttal, not a debate. A fair debate would feature two scholars on the subject, who agree to provide full sets of statements, side by side, along with responses by each person. You are, of course, more than welcome to place the link in the categories previously mentioned, such as Criticism of Islam- or devise a new sub-section that criticizes this particular term, or the role that it has played- but be prepared to use primary sources, rather than just Spencer's rebuttal, to cite in that section. Should you choose to do so, I would highly recommend that to best be objective, you would do better than to solely cite Spencer as your source. Daniel Pipes, for example has notably written critiques of Islamic Culture, is someone who has studied the subject in an accredited academic setting, and a number of his articles have been published in journals that are peer-reviewed. That said, you might be surprised to find that he does not always agree with the claims made by Spencer and Fitzgerald. The example of Taqqiya is a perfect case in point, and one that I think you would do well to review before you proceed in order to avoid the logical fallacy of confirmation bias in your writing. Needless to say, if you do decide to add a critique of the concept, it would only be fair to add a subsection that critiques the nature of the criticism as well. Engaging in a revert war in no way effectively addresses any of the points made here. I've requested that the article be re-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, let's get one thing straight: The imperative is that all articles concerning Islam within Wikipedia define the concepts that are inherent within the religion in and of itself; it is not an imperative to provide criticism of those elements by non-adherents in each and every entry- especially if it is derived from your POV to express you personal sectarian bias. — This has nothing to do with my 'sectarian bias' (whatever that's supposed to mean). And second of all, I consider this a weak form of censorship, since let's face it, this is not about Spencer being wrong, unacademic, or whatever the claims are, but because Spencer is very critical of Islam (which means that many politically correct Wikipedians, and Muslim Wikipedians, generally try to remove his influence on Islam-related articles). Protecting this article is certainly not necessary. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it, you need to show just how this link is justifiable given items 1, 2, 12, 14 Wiki's list of links to be avoided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Considering these policies, your link isn;t a justifiable addition to the article. It is NOT a primary reference on the concept of al-Insan al-Kamil. It is a rebuttal of criticism made of Spencer. Had you linked to an original article written by Spencer specifically on this topic, that would be another matter. It's not; he simply rebutting criticism. Start with the title:"Robert Spencer nailed to the wall!" This is not an article devoted to the concept of, "al-Insan al-Kamil" with an accordingly suitable title written by Robert Spencer. Furthermore, you state in the history: "Spencer provides sources, discusses the concept, and does, it has nothing to do with 'primary reference' as you falsely claim, it is just a link to a notable critic of Islam. deleting it can be censor" Just because he is a "notable critic of Islam" does not automatically justify inclusion of this particular link. Where are Spencer's sources that SPECIFICALLY address the term "al-Insan al Kamil"? He does not cite any source that discuss this term in that link. His discussion is simply a rebuttal to criticism made by someone named Makoko who disagreed with Spencer's translation of the term; it is not a piece that Spencer has written on this concept. In fact, when you read it, he only briefly alludes to this specific term. He quotes a lists of people who have translated it as "the perfect man". He then goes on to describe the traditions of imitation of the Prophet Muhammad, WITHOUT ever mentioning the term "al-Insan al-Kamil" again! So aside from this very brief allusion to the term, just how is this link a "primary reference" on this topic by Spencer? Finally, my comments have nothing to do with "political correctness" as you say. When I first removed the link, I specifically stated it could be placed in the "criticism of Islam" entry, or that you are welcome to start a new section that is critical of the term- but you need to cite a primary reference if you do so- that is Wiki's policy. Furthermore, I suggested that you not reply solely on Spencer, as his authority is not considered universally reliable by academic standards. your preference for his writing does not automatically mean it is so. If you should do so (and you clearly feel compelled to post criticism), I suggested that you might consider Daniel Pipes instead, as he has written article in journals that have been peer-reviewed. Just how is my making this suggestion "politically correct"? If anything, I would venture that the only reason you feel compelled to include the link is because of your own POV- what I meant by sectarian bias. So, in short, you are more than welcome to write a relevant section critiquing the term, go find something cogent, reliable, and verifiable source to support that addition, and then cite it. It would be a relevant expansion of the current article. Insisting that a link to a rebuttal by Spencer in which he barely mentions the term at all is just plain lazy. telling me "he's right" or "he's notable" in no way proves that the inclusion of this link is relevant. Protecting the article is only necessary to prevent your posting of links that do not adhere to Wiki's policy on external links. It's not censorship- it's Wiki's policy. Read up on it, will ya?Jemiljan (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation filed

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


Merry Christmas

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 KJV


Dear EliasAlucard, at this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that harden hearts and enslaves minds.

Kirbytime sen't me this a year ago, and I liked it, so Merry Christmas, and see you next year. Yahel Guhan 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Yahel. Merry Christmas to you too, and a happy new year. Come to think of it, I need to set up some kind of Christmas message on my front page. Oh and, Happy Hanukkah! :) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Communist Korea

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How is a redirect a personal attack? if you feel offended because you are from North Korea, fine. But that is not my problem and no reason to speedy delete the redirect, and you certainly cannot call this a personal attack. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a personal attack and have removed the speedy tags. You might want to give some explanation in the edit summary next time, though. Cheers —Travistalk 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not from N. Korea, so don't even try to pull that Asian card on me, but it is in fact an attack to the NK people. I see where TravisTX has "intervened". You are trying to categorize an entire country not by its name, but by its political system. It is incorrect and frankly, given the political tensions with the United States vs. North Korea, is a bit racist. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not from N. Korea, so don't even try to pull that Asian card on me — Okay, I'm sorry if I was mistaken. but it is in fact an attack to the NK people — I agree that Communism is an attack on the North Korean people. I personally hope that the country will free itself of Communism because I believe Communism is evil. You are trying to categorize an entire country not by its name, but by its political system. — Well, the same can be said of Nazi Germany. It is incorrect and frankly, given the political tensions with the United States vs. North Korea, is a bit racist. — It is not at all incorrect since that is, unfortunately, the ideology of North Korea. However, calling this 'racist' is a blatant abuse of the word racist. Racially speaking, I have nothing against Koreans and my heart goes out to them because they have to suffer for living under the oppression of Communism (a very degenerate ideology). But hey, if you think this redirect (it's only a redirect) is unfair, I think you should vote for a name change on the Talk:Nazi Germany#Requested move article. That is, if you care about being consistent and following through with your logic. Otherwise, it's a double standard. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
May I also remind you, that there are other redirects such as Communist Poland, Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, etcetera. It's not a personal attack on North Koreans, it's just a standard Wikipedia procedure. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, for the record, I've been a student of Taekwondo, a Korean martial arts. That said, I have a lot of respect for Koreans. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily an exact double standard, since Nazi Germany is a former government form. North Korea is still communist at the moment. Oh yeah, you don't need to quote my entire comment if all you're doing is paste the entire comment under mine. And, have you tried to do google.se hits on Communist Korea vs. North Korea? Anyways, to prove you yourself aren't applying a double standard, have you considered doing redirects for Democratic America or US Controlled Iraq? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Strictly speaking, Democracy isn't an ideology (though it is being treated as one today by fanatic democracy advocates). But since redirects are cheap (and useful), I'll contemplate doing a redirect on Democratic America. However, US Controlled Iraq seems very unlikely that will be an exact search, and the US isn't really controlling Iraq. But if you don't believe me, look up my edit history. I create a lot of redirects every now and then. I have no real political agenda by doing so (if that's what you're thinking). And I'm certainly not an advocate of American foreign policy (I think they've screwed up a lot with their foreign policy, virtually every single time, damn those neo-cons). For the record, I don't advocate democracy either because it's an easily corrupted form of government, and a very inefficient form of government lacking a well needed hierarchy. I also believe that America isn't a democracy (at least not in reality, since its citizens have no real political power). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, 1,850 Google hits seems enough to warrant a redirect. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Anyways, thank you for justifying your intentions for the NK redirect. Have a happy holidays. I'll be on WikiBreak until 2008, so have a good break. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You might however want to add links from Wikipedia articles to US Controlled Iraq, because so far, only my talk page links to it, which means it will probably get deleted very soon. Happy Christmas, if you celebrate it :) See you next year. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dolph Lundgren

Hi there! Regarding your reversal [15] of my edit where I removed the statement about Dolph's IQ being 160. The statement is not documented and Dolph himself has stated several times that it is not true. So why keep it? Cheers, ArchStanton (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tjena. Jo jag tycker nämligen att det är bra att ha med det för att avfärda falska rykten. Det står ju att han påstår att det inte är sant. Dessutom har det nästan blivit ett faktum att han skulle ha 160 i IQ (på grund av word of mouth), vilket jag tycker är bra att vi påpekar här på wiki att så inte är fallet. Hur leker livet i Norge, förresten? :) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Holly Sherwood Picasso.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Holly Sherwood Picasso.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Elias, please refrain from making insulting and derogatory remarks against Muslim Wikipedians, as you did here,[16] as well as multiple times previously. Wikipedia policies are quite clear that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. ITAQALLAH 15:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't attack any specific Muslim Wikipedian, I was making a good point on the situation of Robert Spencer. But I'll try to tone down my language. Merry Christmas by the way, if you celebrate it :) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been celebrating Eid al-Adha, but I wish you season's greetings all the same. :-) ITAQALLAH 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ya sidi, Allah challik o Allah ma'ak ;) — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elias, another request. I believe I have noted this in our previous discussion on RS/N, but these kinds of comments are becoming increasingly unacceptable.[17][18] Contrary to what you seem to believe, Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, neither is Wikipedia a soapbox. Campaign against whatever ideology or belief you want, but don't do it on Wikipedia. Let's keep our comments strictly related to the issues at hand, such as discussing edits made to articles, or the reliability of respective sources. If not, we might find ourselves discussing this on AN/I. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'll promise to better myself starting from next year. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Basra

Hello Elias, I heard that you are good in history, do you know orginal Basra belong to whom? Akkad, Sumer or Arab? many thanks. Mussav (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don't think Akkadians or Sumerians had anything to do with that city. It was probably founded by Arabs. But the region has been under Sumero-Akkadian/Assyro-Babylonian control. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

stop using wikipedia to wage your war against Muslims

Stop using Wikipedia to wage your war against muslims for your own interest and not for what is best for wikipedia. Please adhere to Wikipedia atiquetes and rules. We will continue to argue the pictures dipicting the prophet Muhamad until they are removed no matter how long it takes. Wikipedia is all about knowledge and fact that reference the truth and there is no truth to the pictures. Sukleen (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslims do not own Wikipedia. Pictures of Muhammad are here for everyone to use. And those pictures of Muhammad were drawn by Muslims themselves. and not for what is best for wikipedia. — What is best for Wikipedia? Please do tell. Is it to remove pictures of Muhammad? Is that the best interest of Wikipedia? Or is it purely your own interest as a Muslim? Should I interpret this message of yours as a threat? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ibrahim Baylan

Hi Elias. I notice that you have previously edited the article on Ibrahim Baylan. If you check the article you'll see it's recently been edited by an anonymous IP, and I suspect the edit is contentious. Perhaps you'd care to revert that edit if you deem it appropriate. Knowing nothing about the politics involved myself, I'm not inclined to do it of my own accord. CaughtLBW (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Appreciated. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey whats up, long time no speak. I know its late merry christmas and happy new year! So hows the assyrian articles goin? I'm busy right now with uni unfortunately but if you need something specific and small I can help.Tourskin (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My dad is tyaraye. Nice article lol. When I can ask my dad, I'll see if i can get some info or somethin. Tourskin (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey what's up man, not much, they've been trying to delete the {{Assyrian-stub}}, simply because they are against our flag since we have a political goal they oppose. Check it out: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/January/2. Happy New Year and all that, I'm kind of busy right now, talk later! — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian-stub

Would you care to point out these many stub templates you assert use the flags of political organizations? (Other than ones pertaining to a political organization that is.) The flag would certainly be appropriate for a stub type concerning the Assyrian Universal Alliance, but not for a generic Assyrian stub, since that would require accepting its POV that it speaks for all Assyrians. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is accepted by all Assyrians. This flag doesn't belong to the Assyrian Universal Alliance, it is not owned by them in that sense. All Assyrians use the flag. Google Assyriska FF and check out the images and you'll see how it's used on soccer games (just an example). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel/Neo-Nazism

I will delete your article on Israel and neo-nazism again. Is their any special reason you made it? You probably hate Israel. (And "perhaps no"... it does not deserve any attention so keep it like that). (SebastianGS (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Shlama, and thanks a lot for your personal attack on my character. I think it's notable and have reverted your edit once again.[19] I don't hate Israel at all (I can, however, be critical of Israeli/Jewish actions based on Jewish interests sometimes, but that's mostly because I'm motivated by rationality and trying to be objective as best I can rather than a fanatic Christian supporter of Zionism similar to right-wing trash found in America). I even think Jews have a right to their own state in Israel because I'm an ethnopluralist. I did not "made" that subsection, but I am generally speaking an inclusionist and don't believe in running around and deleting well-written content from the articles here at Wikipedia, based on "notability", or as it seems in this case, censorship due to a controversial topic. Whoever wrote that piece in the article, I have no idea. How did you come to the conclusion that I wrote it though? För övrigt anser jag att du borde läsa WP:NPOV, med tanke på att du är av judisk bakgrund och förmodligen har svårt att hålla dig objektiv och neutral inom dylika artiklar. Välkommen till Engelska Wikipedia förresten, med varma hälsningar från en semitisk broder av assyriskt ursprung. Vill du ha hjälp med något så är det bara att fråga. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Jag visste inte vem som skrev artikeln men eftersom du var den som la tillbaka avsnittet så kom jag hit. :) Om artikeln... den är inte bra skiven. Den är bara skriven för att smutskasta Israel. Tycker du att det ska finnas sådant på Wikipedia? Detta handlar om ryska immigranter som inte är integrerade i Israel, och detta är självfallet ett stort problem med tanke på att Israel är beroende av immigration (för att behålla judisk majoritet). Det är dock lite lustigt... bara för att jag är jude så kommer jag ha svårt att hålla mig neutral inom vissa artiklar? Det är väl endå antisemitiskt att säga att judar har problem med NPOV! Vad är nästa steg, att säga att israelerna är de riktiga nynazisterna? Etnopluralism låter förövrigt som ett annat ord för nazism. Tycker du att alla ska hålla sig för sig själa på sin egen plats? Du är ju själv assyrier och bor i Sverige (eller?) så hur går det ihop egentligen? (SebastianGS (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
Du skriver att stycket Neo-Nazism#Israel är skrivet för att smutskasta Israel... Är du seriös nu alltså? Exakt vad i den texten uppfattar du som smutskastning? Hela stycket är mer eller mindre en rapportering på en jude-fientlig händelse som ägde rum i Israel för några månader sedan. Jag förstår inte vad du syftar på när du skriver att det är smutskastning; jag tror att du tar själva händelsen som sådan lite väl för personligt. Wikipedia är för övrigt inte censurerat: WP:CENSOR. Vad är det som är antisemitiskt med att be dig läsa på WP:NPOV? Du är ny här på Wikipedia och det är en policy man bör ha läst på för att förstå hur man ska skriva. Jag har själv blivit uppmanad att läsa på WP:NPOV när jag arbetat med artiklar som är relaterade till assyrier, det är bara en helt vanlig procedur. Jag skulle inte direkt påstå att Israeler är nynazister, däremot finns det ju helt klart likheter mellan Zionismen och Nazismen då de båda är nationalistiska ideologier. Men det är inget unikt för Zionismen som sådan, utan alla nationalistiska ideologier är egentligen rätt lika varandra och har liknande mål (men det ska erkännas att det finns avsevärda och fundamentalistiska skillnader mellan alla nationalistiska ideologier som man inte kan bortse ifrån). Sen finns det ju de som menar att Hitler kopierade judarna (se till exempel Kevin MacDonald). Dock ska du inte tolka detta som något slags hat eller något, jag svarar bara sakligt på dina frågor. Att likställa etnopluralism med nazismen är däremot bara nonsens. Nazisterna tror ju på Social Darwinism som knappast fungerar ihop med etnopluralism. Påstår man att nazister är etnopluralister så är man grovt okunnig om (ny)nazismen som ideologi. Anledningen till att jag förespråkar etnopluralism är helt enkelt för att jag anser att alla folkslag, däribland mitt eget, har rätt till en egen självständig stat där endast deras folk lever och där de mer optimalt kan bevara sin egen kultur, och viktigast av allt, sitt eget folk, och detta ska givetvis även gälla judar men inte bara begränsat till judar. Rent principiellt anser jag att även svenskar har rätt till deras eget land med deras eget folk, men nu är situationen som den är, jag är som assyrier statslös och jag kan inte påverka världspolitiken så som jag hade önskat, och jag har inget "Israel" att återvända till. Men jag tror helt enkelt att etnopluralism är livsnödvändig för mänskligheten; frågan är ju om mångkultur är hållbart i längden? Finns alltid risk för etniska konflikter och i längden även folkmord, som enkelt hade kunnat undvikas om alla folkslag levde i sina egna länder. Man kan ju dock fråga sig varför du är emot etnopluralism när du anser att judar ska vara majoritet i Israel? Om du tycker att alla folkslag ska leva ihopklumpade i alla möjliga länder då bör du även acceptera minoritetsstatus för judar i Israel, förutsatt att du vill vara konsekvent. Du tycker väl inte att mångkultur ska gälla för alla folkslag men endast judar ska ha rätt till sitt eget land? I så fall är det en enorm inkonsekvens på en otrolig skala, och framför allt, dubbelmoral och hyckleri. För övrigt håller jag inte med termen antisemit, då jag anser att den är felaktigt exklusiv för en semitisk folkgrupp, och att om termen Semite ska vara rådande för flera olika semitiska folkslag så bör även antisemit gälla alla semiter. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutralisation

Hi, I saw you appreciated a strict respect of NPoV and sourcing. Good. If I remember well, we do not appreciate much each other. Not Bad. I appreciate your incisive sense of humor. A second mind would be welcome here to neutralize the background of this article : [20].
Feel free to correct in the core of the article and then to give comments on the talk page and eventually to answer to some Zionsits of your heart :-).
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I've bumped into you somewhere, can't remember where though. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for your comments.
Don't worry about where and why we bumped. That was not in pleasant circumstances.
But I assume that if I with my bias and own minds bumped on somebody who I consider have a pro-Israeli highly disruptive pov-pushing behaviour, then he must be out of all ranges for wikipedia's quality...
I will not succeed in getting this article being developed in respect of NPoV without some support to "discuss" with him because I think I have lost all my patience with him.
So, if you still can help, I thank you in advance and I am sure other contributors will thank you too.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
lol, sorry about that. Well, I'll see what I can do. But to be honest, Palestine articles aren't exactly my top priority. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Neo-Nazism

You are currently at 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. I assume as a user who has been here since 2004 you are aware about the policy. I suggest you self-revert. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. My last two reverts had nothing to do with the previous reverts of mine. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. You apparently are not aware of the policy in detail. In this case, please consider this your official warning. From WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Having been around WP:AN/3RR, Iet me assure you that the overwhelming majority of admins will consider you as currently in violation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, the last two reverts had nothing to do with the content, I removed redundant and obtrusive <!--comment tags-->. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What part of "undoing the actions of another editor" is unclear? And how obtrusive can comments be? Readers don't even see them! You may have noticed that I have not run to the RR noticeboard, nor have I blocked you myself. I'm trying to inform you about the policy - believe me or not, as you prefer. You might want to look at a few cases to develop your own understanding of current practice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's quite clear. I think however you're being very picky and making a big deal out of this. Those were not even comments, just comment tags, and totally redundant. If you're going to block me for this, then you're trying to make a federal case out of nothing. Look, I didn't undo anything related to the content, and that is what you usually get blocked for regarding the 3RR policy. Getting blocked for removing comment tags is extremely ridiculous. I can't imagine anything beside spite for blocking an editor because of that. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Wnen you tag an article as a copyvio, please post to that effect on the article talk page.[21] Also, you might say why you think that Wikipedia is the copyright violator and not the other site. Are you claiming authorship? Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There are some excerpts in the wikipedia article taken or 'slightly' modified from that source. Also, I can't seem to find the Plato quote anywhere else except that site. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia content is often copied by other sites without attribution. That may be the case here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pat Condell

I see you created Pat Condell in August 2007, but it got speedy deleted, it was later recreated by User:Bingo99. He is now more notable and known.--Seriousspender (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What a pointless delete that was. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Julius Evola

Are you sure that Mr. Julius Evola died in 1974 ( you have worked on this article ), I think he died in 1971 ! Kindly clear the confusion

Thanks Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I didn't add anything about his date of death, as far as I can remember. But it seems to be accurate that he died in 1974.[22] You're welcome. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EliasAlucard/Archive_4&oldid=1190115733"