User talk:EliasAlucard
Please note: Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning. Please create an account or log in if you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion.
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
 Mike Young has smiled at you! He says
| |||
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)
- 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)
- They should use a less blasphemous name for the camp. Tourskin 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 [[1]] and [[2]], 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)
- Could be nice. Where shall I post the translations when and if I complete them? Funkynusayri 17:23, 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)
- No problem, I like Assyrians. I'm kinda sad the rest of us got Arabised! Funkynusayri 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- lol? :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:29 12 Oct, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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)