User talk:EliasAlucard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hello, regarding Asuristan

Hello. Sorry about that, I have been busy lately.Hajji Piruz 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

Kuwaitis are the genetic descendants of the Sumerians and are MUSLIMS!. So stop trolling. Irqirq 11:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sumerians were not Muslims. Sumerian people article, is a joke. This is not soapbox. By the way, Nochi/Balu2000, welcome back. How was your ban anyway? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:10 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Aramaeans again...

I am not siding with anybody, I am just trying to come to a compromise so that we can finally move on. I am sick and tired of having Assyrian projects being stalled for months because of these issues. We need to solve them once an for all. Chaldean 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Solve them how? By creating "Aramaean" articles and legitimizing this false identity? We don't need to compromise with historical revisionists. Giving these liars any credibility is preposterous, they are just denying facts and making things up. If you think a compromise is going to make it better, you're wrong. Next thing they'll do, they'll create lots of articles about Aramaean diaspora, Aramaeans are 10 million people, bla bla bla. No, we don't need this crap. What we need to do, is simply, report what's false and what's true. No appeasement, call a spade a spade. They're into revisionism, then they shouldn't be given any credibility. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:08 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Take a deep breath. It's OK that some of our people call themselves Aramaean cousin. As long as they don't deny us our right to call ourselves Assyrian and deny that they are a subset of our people under the term Syriacs. Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Aramaeans, are all Syriacs. Not everyone is going to accept the term Assyrian. Habibi, I've been down your route. It's not going to work trying to force a singular compliance into your position. Sharru Kinnu III 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not about forcing anyone to do anything. Wikipedia is not the Syrian Orthodox Chuch, it is not here to indoctrinate Assyrians into lies, in order to make them believe they are something else. Obviously, we are the same people, and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on this, not endorse any ridiculous (revisionist) claims of being a long lost people. If they can prove with serious academic sources that they are Aramaeans, fine, I will accept it. Until then, we go by the unanimous academic sources we have, saying that they are Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:52 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You might not like it, but it's a fact that there are Syriacs who do not want to be referred to as Assyrians, just as there are Syriacs who do not like to be identify with Aramaeans.

There is only one scholar, as far as I know, who claims that the current Assyrians are the same as the ancient Assyrians. He does not prove a darn thing. The fact that he is an Assyriologist does not change that. And does it ever occur to you that scholars do not always agree with one another? Being a scholar does not make everything you say right.

You should read something about primordialism. Ethnicity is not something you can impose on people. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is only one scholar, as far as I know, who claims that the current Assyrians are the same as the ancient Assyrians. He does not prove a darn thing. The fact that he is an Assyriologist does not change that. — Bullshit. There are several Assyriologists, and lest we forget, Richard Nelson Frye:

• Modern Assyrians and their connection to the ancient Assyrians, is disputed. However, a lot speaks in favour for them being the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. Prominent Assyriologists like H.W.F. Saggs, Robert D. Biggs and Simo Parpola don't believe that the ancient Assyrians were wiped out. They believe that the modern Assyrians truly are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians.

• Oh yeah, there's also the Aramaean super-hero Benne. Look, stop trying to make this Aramaean identity into a 50/50 case, all right? Yes, there are some Assyrians, who say they are Aramaeans. They are not many. They exist in small numbers in northern Europe, and to some extent, in the USA. That is all. And their claims of "Aram-Nahrin" being in central Assyria, is a joke. Look Benne, you are not helping Assyrians, nor are you helping "Aramaeans", by perpetuating this false identity. You are only making things worse. Could you please stop perpetuating this lie? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:18 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a congratulatory speech

But I do have this:

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		I commend your efforts to improve the articles of our peoples. You are both courageous and bring pride to Assyria in your edits. Tourskin 06:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I also gave this to Chaldean, I think he deserves it too. Name me any other fellow Assyrian brothers / sisters whom you feel have put their back into it!!! FOR ASSURBANIPAL!!! YEAH, LETS SACK SOME TOWNS!!Tourskin 06:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Taodi sagi ahuno. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:42 24 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

Good job on all your work. Not everyone's always going to agree with you but hey that's how shit works. Basma ganoukh, you just gotta learn to deal with it. I wouldn't worry too much about Benne's Aramaist fanatacism too much, there's not much basis to it. Sharru Kinnu III 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks man. Now I need to eat some dasheshto! — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:21 24 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

All Jokes aside

I read the Aram nahrin and they claim Assyrians are also Arameans? (which obviously doesnt make sense).

• Are you denying the existance of Arameans at all? Are the (Non Arab or Phoenician) Maronites in Lebanon possible descendants of the Assyrians? or Arameans?
• Why did you revert the copts back! They are not Arabs or Semites. The Maronites are diffirent groups because the Use Syriac in church that dont make all of them Syriac. Just like Indonesians use Arabic in prayers and that dont make them Arabs.
• Are you serious when you edited Shammar/Banu Tai as Assyrians!?, if so I am curious why? I am not nto get sensitive about it. I am just curious maybe you know something I dont. The only possible Assyrian presence in South Arabia that I am aware off was diplomatic mission by 7th century BC and the Assyrian Christians in Najran. If it was a joke....then ok...what can I say!--Skatewalk 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello Skatewalk. The Aram-Nahrin site is as I've told you before, a joke. It's Aramaeanism, they are not basing their claims on historical facts, or what academic scholars say; they are fanatics and should not be taken seriously. As for the Maronites, they used to speak a dialect of Aramaic and that is the reason why they still use Syriac in their Church rituals. You can read more about it here. The Maronites are to some extent of Assyrian ancestry. How much, we don't know. But their claims of being Phoenicians is just as ridiculous as the Syrian Orthodox Church and its claim of being "Aramaean". It's called Phoenicianism. We Assyrians speak a dialect of Aramaic, and we have done so, since the Neo-Assyrian Empire. It's not a pure Aramaic however, and it contains a lot of Akkadian words; that in itself, is obvious evidence that we are Assyrians. If we were Aramaeans, we would have spoken a much cleaner dialect. You can read more about it here. Check out the vocabulary list. As for the Muslim Assyrians, I just copied the content from the Assyrian people article.[1] No, I don't think there are Assyrians in Saudi Arabia, and that article needs a clean up, and possibly, deleted, because there aren't many Muslim Assyrians at all. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:55 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    • So far I never heard of real people claiming they are Aramean, I heard (Siryani) which I use to equate to Aramean...THe phoenician pride is a national Lebanese movement. I really dont have a problem with it although many Arabs including parts of my family claim to be Phoenician! Although our last name and tradition clearly traces us back to South Arabia. However, thats a self identifying right and its kind of a romantic identity (I dont see it as a political movement influenced by govts or political groups, I even heard some palestinians claim to be Phoenician although they are from Gaza!! the land of the ancient Philistines!)....The phoenicians were unique and mysterious thats why its appealing to be a Phoenician.....the sea and adventures....why not!--Skatewalk 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Those who claim to be Aramaeans, are Assyrians. The Syriac Orthodox Church (formerly, Syrian Orthodox Church) is divided between Othuroye and Oromoye. All members in the Syriac Orthodox Church identify as Suryoyo (Siryani in Arabic). Since the 1970's, a schism began and now there are some Syriac Orthodox, mostly found in northern Europe, but also to a lesser extent in the Middle East, who claim to be descendants of the Arameans. This is something very recent. They still identify as Suryoyo however, which means, Assyrian. It's a naming dispute, and it has become quite ridiculous. Most of their arguments don't make sense though. For instance, they claim that Jesus was an Aramaean. I suspect that this is the only reason why they want to be Aramaeans; it's some sort of sectarian thinking, that has evolved in some Syrian Orthodox members, and now they have a holier than thou attitude and pretend that they are Aramaeans. It's quite stupid, to say the least. Now, I know you and I haven't gotten along pretty well, but, I hope that you understand, I am very NPOV when it comes to the Assyrian issue. The reason why I don't buy into their arguments about being Aramaeans, is because of all the bullshit they're coming with, is incoherent, and it doesn't make sense, and most of all, it lacks academic opinions, and they only point you to home made websites like urhoy and aramnahrin. The "Aramaeans", are to us Assyrians, what the "Aryans" were to the Germans. It's the same stupidity; history is repeating itself. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:46 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh and by the way, in case you wonder, my mother's side is Syriac Orthodox and my father's side is Chaldean Catholic. So you have to understand, when I say I'm an Assyrian, I am actually quite neutral on this because I don't follow these ridiculous Church identities, because they have only caused so much discord within our people. We are Assyrians, and that becomes quite clear when you study our history. Our ancestors, are Akkadians, Assyrians, Aramaeans, Babylonians, Chaldeans, and also, most likely, Sumerians, after they had been assimilated into the Akkadian conquerors. But we have identified as Assyrians for a very long time now in the form of Syrians. Never mind the Arab Republic Syria, they took the name from us. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:49 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
• I heard og German study that related Jesus to the Amorites? (kind of a political motivated study). In the Old testament and Quran. Jesus addresses his ppl as "Bani Israel?" and Moses addresses his pppl as "my ppl". I found the claims interesting, but i lost interest when I found out who supports it, because usually politicians take advantage of what we want to think....fancy about. Hebrew or Amorite, Aramean. Its still the same Jesus--Skatewalk 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Mail

I believe we can and should discuss this in public. Why am I doing this? Plain and simple, because I am convinced you are wrong. And because I think it's a shame that Assyrianists want to claim everything Syriac.

As long as you ignore that there is an Aramaean movement, that there are Syriacs who believe themselves to be Aramaeans, both in Europe and in the Middle East, that throughout the history of the Syriacs, there have been plenty of writers (both Syriac and non-Syriac) who identify the Syriacs with the Aramaeans, as long as you do not settle for a common denominator other than Assyrian, things will not be solved.

Look, I am not saying all Syriacs should be called Aramaeans, even though I believe that the Suryoye, especially those who come from Tur Abdin (with whom I am most familiar), are Aramaeans. It is not the Aramaeanists who are causing trouble here, who are imposing their self-appelation on others, it's the Assyrianists. Why don't you see that?

You claim the majority of the Syriacs in the Netherlands call themselves Assyrians. I believe that is nonsense. You have nothing to prove that. I am not claiming that the majority of the Syriacs in Holland self-identify as Aramaeans, because I just don't know. There is no survey that supports either statement. What I do know, is that the vast majority of the Syriacs there call themselves Suryoye.

It doesn't matter if Suryoyo is related to Othuroyo. Even if it were true, that wouldn't change the fact that the two words have a different meaning. All Suryoye identify themselves as Suryoyo, only part of them call themselves Othuroyo, just as part of them call themselves Oromoyo. Check out a Syriac dictionary like Payne Smith's, and you'll see.

These are simple facts. There are Aramaean associations, and Assyrian associations in the Netherlands (just as in about every other European country). It is not me who is causing division among the Syriac people, the division was already there, just as division has been there throughout history. All I do is try to present the facts, no matter how saddening those facts are. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Mor Marqos Monastery Assyrian.jpg

Before the 1950's.

File:Mor Marqos Monastery Syrian.jpg

After the 1950's.

Benne, something is not right with you. You claim that you are not a Suryoyo, neither a Turk, or whatever. Yet, despite your claims, you are completely obsessed with this topic, to the point where it becomes unhealthy. Something, is not right here. I don't know what it is, but somehow, I suspect you of lying, because normal people just don't give a shit about this naming dispute if they are not Suryoye. Either way, I don't think you understand, this Aramaean claim, is a sham. It's an Aramaeanist movement, a political ideology, which is very anti-Assyrian, and it's a divide and rule sort of mentality that has been implemented in many Assyrians. What do you have to say about those two pictures? Yes, there is an Aramaeanist movement in northern Europe. Does that mean it's based on historical accuracy? Of course not. as long as you do not settle for a common denominator other than Assyrian, things will not be solved. — What's wrong with Assyrian? I mean, do you have something against the Assyrian self-appellation? If we are not Aramaeans, why should we inculcate ourselves with lies that everyone from the Syriac Orthodox Church, automagically becomes an Aramaean? It doesn't matter if Suryoyo is related to Othuroyo. Even if it were true, that wouldn't change the fact that the two words have a different meaning. — Suryoyo means Assyrian. Othuroyo/Athuraye, or Assuraye, means, Assyrian. They don't have different meanings. It's just some people, like you, who for some reason, want to believe that Suryoyo, means Oromoyo. Obviously, the words don't even look remotely related. Suroyo/Suraya, means, Assuraya. Everyone can see this. Claiming otherwise, is preposterous. It is not me who is causing division among the Syriac people, the division was already there, just as division has been there throughout history. — You are not only perpetuating this division, but you are also distorting facts with lies. There was no division until after the 1950's. All I do is try to present the facts, no matter how saddening those facts are. — You have never, ever, presented facts here on Wikipedia. Sorry, but Urhoy and Aram-Nahrin websites, are not academic sources. All Suryoye identify themselves as Suryoyo — Yes, that means, as we very well know by now, especially since the Cinekoy inscription and Herodotus 7.63, Assyrian. only part of them call themselves Othuroyo, just as part of them call themselves Oromoyo. — Again, Suryoyo means Assyrian. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a pickup disk that got stuck. All you can utter is "Syriac means Assyrian", it seems ... By the way, I do not claim anything, I just think my background is not of any relevance in this matter. Like I said, I would like facts to be presented. And it is a fact that Syriacs, at least in part, have identified themselves with the ancient Aramaeans.

Perhaps you know Helga Anschütz, who did years of research among the Syriacs in Tur Abdin. In Die syrischen Christen vom Tur `Abdin, she cites Sykes saying: "Jedenfalls erklärten sich die meisten Christen Forschern im 19. Jahrhundert gegenüber als Aramäer, andere bekannten sich als Kurden oder Araber." This "Aramaean thing" is not something new. It may be right that the Urhoy website is not an academic source, but it cites many, many authors, all of whose writings can be verified. Strabo, for example. Both Greeks and Syriacs have stated that those whom the Greeks called Syrians, called themselves Aramaeans (or at least stated that they are Aramaeans, despite their self-appelation). How many more facts do you need? And yes, I have presented these facts on Wikipedia, and will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.

Let me repeat that an etymological connection (which I don't believe is there) does not prove a thing. As you probably know, Greeks in Turkey and in the Arab world are called Rum, named after Rome, because Byzantium was part of the Roman Empire. Does that mean that the Greeks are Romans? Of course not! It's just a silly name. Syriacs have called themselves Aramaeans, any many of them continue to do so, many writers have acknowledged that. Why is it so hard to accept that?

I am not perpetuating anything. Like I said, the division is said enough, but it cannot be overcome by just forgetting about the Aramaean movement. It is there, and it is there to stay. And because it is there, it should be presented on Wikipedia, which is should present facts as they are. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to avoid these two pictures, Benne. Why? Strabo did not refer to Aramaeans as Syrians. And if all these "facts" you talk about, are verifiable, as you claim, then verify them. What are you waiting for? Isn't this your life passion? I mean, you have only been spreading Aramaeanist propaganda on Wikipedia for over a year now, which makes you, for all I care, a Suryoyo "Oromoyo" fanatic. But please, if you're going to verify these "facts", do it without Aramaeanist sites. For instance, I have verified that Herodotus quote, by an academic site, not related to Suryoye sites.[2][3] Why can't you do the same with your alleged "facts"? You keep on pointing me to Aramaeanist websites, which are overloaded with conspiracy theories. Sorry, but I can't take that seriously. And what do you have to say about this? You sound like a pickup disk that got stuck. All you can utter is "Syriac means Assyrian", it seems ... — Yes, that is, because it's so difficult for you to understand, that Syrian originally means Assyrian. If you weren't as stubborn as you are, I wouldn't have to repeat it more than once. Never mind all the academic sources I've provided, you have your mind set that Syrian, means Aramaean. Look, we do have forefathers, who were Aramaeans. That is an indisputable fact of history. But that does not mean, that we are Aramaeans. We are Assyrians, because that is what we have for centuries, identified ourselves as. There's no way in hell, that Aramaeans, would identify themselves as Syrians, if they were Aramaeans. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:50 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Article on Mid East genetics on the Maronite page

Thanks for making it available, it's extremely interesting! Funkynusayri 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just thought it looked so cheap with an imageshack reference. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:34 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Proto Semitic vs Proto Afro-Asiatic

• Ethiopia only has 1 branch only! and it loses Semitic elements East to West (coming from Yemen).

1. 1 Ethiopic family>>>(Tigray/Tigriniya) direct descendants of Southwest Arabian (6th century BC)
2. 2 Aksumite Expansion>>(Amhara)Semitic expands into inner Ethiopia and begins absorboing non Semitic elements. (3rd century AD)
3. 3 The fall of Aksum>>>(Semitic creoles) and the isolation of the Armies, this created the rest of the Semitic creoles in Ethiopia, which were basically the result of the isolation of the Aksumite Garrison towns in Ethiopia. (10th century AD)

• Yemen also was settled East to West and North to South. (Ma'een, Saba'a old capitals were in the desert interior regions), Saba'a expanded into the mountain regions 7th BC and Himyar settled south west Yemen 1st century AD (most the tribes moving from Qataban in the desert, creating small towns).

• Central Arabia is the logical location, because the Semitic expansion came from the west/south in the Akkadian period. And South to North in the Amorite. North to South in Qahtan. A'adid descendants (closer to the empty quarter)still speak Archaic Semitic in the East of Yemen. this language is much more pure than the SouthWest Semitic group (Yemen and Ethiopia).

• • AfroAsiatic claims are very weak, because:
• Ethiopia was settled by the Semites and later invaded by the Oramu giving them the multilingual claim that Ethiopia is the origin, just like Spain can claim its the origin of the IndoEuropean languages, because they have Celtic, Germanic and Latin on Iberia! Which was a result of invasions not origination!.
• The DNA claim is also weak, because Ethiopia was settled by the Yemenites 6thBC to 6th centruy AD. and the Yemenites settled all the mideast and North Africa, covering the AfroAsiatic region (through early pre-Islamic migrations and later Islamic invasions), SO the DNA reflects the DNA of the Semitic invaders and a later reverse invasion of Yemen (by the Aksumite Mixed afro-Semites).--Skatewalk 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, what is your conclusion? — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:05 27 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    • I want you to put some thought into this man? what logic tells you? Go see the article, does it make sense? Ethiopia as the proto Semitic homeland of our languages! Although Ethiopia first Semitic language came from Yemen as late as 6th century BC. And the presence of Cushite languages in Ethiopia (in 1500BC-1000BC) doesn't mean that Semitic branched out of Cushite as Afrocentrics claim these days!--Skatewalk 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it's called Afro-Asiatic, because the languages from North Africa, to the Arabian peninsula, Levant, and Mesopotamia, speak these languages, hence, Afro-Asiatic. Much like Indo-European. Berber language, and Coptic language, are also Afro-Asiatic languages. Semitic languages, are Afro-Asiatic languages. To draw a parallel, you can compare Semitic languages with Germanic languages, and Coptic languages with Slavic languages. The Afro-Asiatic languages are related much in the same way, as Indo-European languages are related. Doesn't always have to be close DNA ties. Semitic languages form a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family tree, in the same way for instance, Romance languages form a subgroup of Indo-European languages. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:29 27 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
• Does the origin of the IndoEuropean languages has to be the same of the origin of the Germanic languages?
• Why are they connecting the proto semetic origin with the Afro-Asiatic origin!? (In the article proto-Semitic :Alternative scenarios make Ethiopia the Proto-Semitic homeland[1]. If the Afro-Asiatic hypothesis is accepted, the question of the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland is a related debate. That itself is a wrong statement, Ethiopia didnt have anything to do with the Semitic languages when the Semitic languages were already spread in the NearEast by 2000BC. (I even doubt that the highlands in Yemen were even settled before 20th century BC). The first regions to develop Semitic cultures in Yemen are the regions closer to Central Arabia and the Semitic influence kept moving to the west and south with the Saba'ean Expansion of the 7th century BC eventually reaching Africa in the 6th century BC. So Ethiopia being the original homeland of the Semitic languages is easily ruled out. (the AfroAsiatic origin theory is very weak because they use DNA as evidence! when I already explained why DNA is weak in that case, but thats another subject. And I am concerned about the claims in the Proto-Semitic article)--Skatewalk 19:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the origin of the IndoEuropean languages has to be the same of the origin of the Germanic languages? — Germanic languages, are Indo-European. That is why Adolf Hitler was so obsessed with Indo-Iranian civilisations, or "Aryan". There is a linguistic connection. For example, Mother (English), Moder (Swedish, a Germanic language), Mader (Persian, an Indo-Iranian language), Madre (Italian), and so on. Why are they connecting the proto semetic origin with the Afro-Asiatic origin!? — Well, why not? They are all linguistically related to each other in one way or the other. And you know, modern science says we all originate from Africa. So, who knows? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:58 27 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know the Germanic lanuage story (Proto Germanic came from Scandanavia)>>>before that it wasn't Germanic (it was still Indo European). Proto Semitic came from the near east, 6000BC maybe entrance via Sinai to Arabia (If yo want to consider it Proto Semitic at that point), But In Africa there is no Proto-Semitic presence before the Semites introduced it to Africa. (the Sabaeans in Ethiopia and the Hysksos, Assyrians breif occupations of Egypt and the Phoenicians colinization of North Africa-many elements were absorbed into Berber languages-) --Skatewalk 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So, where are your sources? And by the way, Proto-Semitic, doesn't necessarily have to be a complete Semitic language; it could very well might have been a premature African language of some sort; a predecessor to the Semitic languages, perhaps derived from Ethiopian or maybe even Old Egytpian language. Akkadian doesn't necessarily have to be the first Semitic language. It's just the earliest recorded Semitic language, hence, it is sometimes considered to be Proto-Semitic. Of course, needless to say, this is all specualtion and nothing I'm saying with absolute certainty. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:58 27 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• Elias see, I read about the origin from Sinai and there is evidence that it could have been derived from Proto-Egyptian. The Question is what classifies the Semitic as Semitic? Most scholars go the three letter verb and the present starting with (Y). Thats the first element that defines Semitic. If the language is in a stage where its still similar to old Egyptian does that make it Semitic? Anything beyond the recorded era is Speculations. I mean the Akkadians some how (got lucky) by encountering the Sumerians, otherwise the world might have been so different today! The Akkadians is as far as we know, and recorded history writes off EThiopia as an original homeland. Did you read about a theory suggesting Northern origins? another theory suggesting Darvidian origins (besides the more accepted of the Sumerian language). All these are theories that shold get mentioned if we want to mention Ethiopia--Skatewalk 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, all I can say, is WP:CITE and we can discuss this from a more academic point of view. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:10 27 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    • Elias unfortunately there is nothing to cite before the Sumerian era. I just wanted to being this article into your attention...thats all--Skatewalk 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Why do you even care about my opinion with our history in mind? — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:52 28 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

FreeCiv on Linux

I dunno if you're familiar with the classic PC game Civilization but there is an opensource game akin to it called FreeCiv. The interesting thing is that you can select an Assyrian entity complete with our national flag. Check it out. It's awesome. Sharru Kinnu III 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Linux is a piece of shit. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:45 28 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Lol not a nice way to respond to that! Tourskin 07:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's true. Have you ever tried Linux? — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:08 29 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I had a good Polish friend who went on about it and made me bored but no I haven't. Lol don't take this in a bad way, but ur responses crack me up. No but I think they need to make another Total War game: Assyria: Total war!!! Tourskin 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not trying to be funny here, Linux is truly a piece of shit. It is one of the most defunct operating systems ever created. All of the distros, suck ass. Perhaps Ubuntu is somewhat decent, beyond that though, Linux is for geeks and will always be. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:39 30 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on Linux :-D ... MX44 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's good for server use. Other than that, Linux licks my balls. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:39 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

You have a Motorola Cell Phone in your pocket? MX44 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the kernel; obviously, that's a quite a damn good kernel. I'm talking about the shitty distros. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:46 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Linux is great man. You just have to learn to use it. Windows is so heavily flawed I don't know where to begin... actually I do-SECURITY. To be quite honest the best thing out there is BSD and Mac OS is BSD-based and now Unix-certified. Even Microsoft is making Windows more Unix-like with every new version starting back from Windows NT. Sharru Kinnu III 14:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I use Xubuntu by the way. I agree that most distros suck but Xubuntu is a slimmed down Ubuntu wich is great on my old ass IBM 300 PL running on a P3 533 with 384 MB of Ram and a 4MB Video card, CD Burner [no DVD] and a 20GB HD... I ordered this new Laptop PC from http://www.medisoncelebrity.com but it hasn't arrived yet. It's the source of a lot of controversy right now with some questioning its actual existance and some think it's vapor-ware. Sharru Kinnu III 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Linux is good for older computers. But have you tried Windows FLP? — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:50 05 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

For starters lucky for me I'm not a corporation in need of a cheap upgrade and I like the setup I have very much. My account when I log in as admin looks like osx but my guest account looks just like windows. Check out my screenshot: http://www.geocities.com/sargonious/Screenshot.png

So, what are you trying to prove with a screenshot? Linux is still shit. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:14 05 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Philosphically advanced... erup... lol wtf you're just being irrational. It works great for me. It obviously doesn't work for you. What logic are you basing this on? You just irrationally bash whatever you don't agree with or like. It's all good. I feel the same way about Windows. I like the command prompt and actually liked DOS better than Windows. I'm just dying for hurd to come out. It will revolutionize and replace LINUX. Sharru Kinnu III 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it doesn't work for me. It works fine. It's just that Linux distros are insufficient for my needs. I do other things than Wikipedia, you know. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:46 06 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean but it's all about adapting to it and yeah everything out for windows isn't available to linux though there may be derivatives that may work as good if not better and in some cases certainly worse. Quite honestly these will all eventually get replaced because they're still primitive. Sharru Kinnu III 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how come you have such an old computer? I mean, where do you live, in Somalia? :P — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:54 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

No worse, Michigan. lol actually I gave my 1GHz PCs away. One to my mom and one to my cousins. One is an AMD with 384 mb ram 100mhz front side bus the other is a P3 coppermine with 1GB of RAM and a 256MB video card... still kind of weak but nevertheless superior to this piece of crap I'm using and I'm waiting for those assholes in Sweden at Medison to send me my laptop. WTF? It's been 6 weeks. Sharru Kinnu III 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

LOL... I'm sorry but I'm descended of Assyrian Royalty if he's a professor. Sharru Kinnu III 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and I'm Ashurbanipal's cloned brother ;) Trolls ought to be banned. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:44 28 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the royal cook. Will it be dolma or coobah?Tourskin 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about kbebat? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:40 30 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

All this talk about food is getting me hungry before lunchtime at work. I would kill for some kubba hamouth right now or even with khertmaneh... Sharru Kinnu III 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ADO

I really don't have that much of a time right now khon. When I'm free, I'll get to work on it. Pshena. Chaldean 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, take your time. Psheino hobo. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:46 31 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Goal of Nazism

The creation of racially pure supermen through selective breeding and the subjection of the human race to their dominance and their eventual demise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well yes. But that is typical indoctrination of what they teach you in school. Nazism is a lot more than just that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:58 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I know quite a bit about that regime and the National Socialist party. Did you know that he was obsessed with the Assyrian empire? In fact a lot of symbolism was borrowed from it and realated to it. In fact some Zionist extremist refer to Nazi Germany as Assyria in fullfilment of biblical prophecy. Sharru Kinnu III 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not Assyria. Hitler was obsessed with the Roman empire and Sparta. In fact, Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first National Socialist state, and praised its early eugenics treatment of deformed children. I seriously doubt that Hitler would be interested in a Semitic empire (though perhaps, he jerked off to the Ten Lost Tribes event in Assyrian history). — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:50 05 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against forced Eugenics but not for purposes of "Racial Purity" but to forcefully evolve the human race into a super species through genetic engineering. There should be somekind of treatment out there that forces the egg and the sperm to only allow the formation of a genetically superior embryo with only the best genes from both parents. Perhaps there should be a way to even break that down to where you can take many eggs and sperms and selectively extract specific genes to create a true offspring of the parents DNA-wise and to also enhance features if needbe. Sharru Kinnu III 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against forced Eugenics but not for purposes of "Racial Purity" but to forcefully evolve the human race into a super species through genetic engineering. — That doesn't make any sense. If you support Eugenics, then you must also advocate racial purity. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:47 06 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Well not directly but eventually with the emergence of a new super offspring the old nation will die out and that will be the so-called racial purity, the elimination of primitive humanity. Sharru Kinnu III 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

EITHER WAY, if you want to develop an Übermensch race, you have to do with regards to racial purity, because obviously, it has to be homogeneous for it to count as a superior human race. Eugenics, is in fact, racial hygiene. So, that said, you are an Assyrian racist :P — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:59 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Heil Sargon of Akkad! jp actually I would take all of humanity as a whole and selectively pick superior genes out of everyone be it beauty, intelligence, strength and whatever other variables are in the equation with regards for diversity so as to not create one group of people that all look the same but a nice variety and variation of traits just eliminating the bad genes in human society hence the term genetic engineering or what others politically refer to as playing God which I feel is not the case because God gave us free-will to do as we please even if he disagrees. That's for us to take up with him not people. Sharru Kinnu III 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This begs the question: provided that we Assyrians ever got a state, do you think implementing eugenics would be preferable? I mean, I see a lot of Assyrians who are complete fuckheads, and something must be done about them, like sterilizing them, or something along those lines. Obviously, having complete morons in our gene pool is damaging. I would start by sterilizing all Oromoyo fanatics amongst us and then dub it the Pseudo-Aramaean Genocide :P — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:38 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Harness their organs and use them for natural resources. The fat can be used as oil. The skin as skins literally. The hair can be processed and used. Everyone has a purpose. lol jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.166.43 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about, just feeding them to Lions? Animals need food as well, you know :) Besides, it would be like the good old days in Mesopotamia. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:07 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess your right better that than have their remains resurrected in other people corrupting the bloodstream of humanity. Better yet just grind them all in a giant blender and extract the proper minerals and nutrients for industrial needs. Sharru Kinnu III 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll reserve three tickets for us to see the Lion "match"?Tourskin 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah man, no tickets needed. Someone just crown me the new King of Assyria, and I will feed all Oromoyo fanatics to the Lions and broadcast it live internationally as a warning to all other Oromoyo fanatics. That would rule. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:07 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll watch it live from the internet.Tourskin 06:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

PS3

Dude you gotta get Darkness... Sharru Kinnu III 22:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shit yeah. I downloaded the demo from PSN. Pretty fucking awesome. Definitely getting it. Just need to get my thumb out of my ass and buy it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:50 05 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

NO! GET DARK MESSIAH!

Its as hard as hell but its so awesome.!! Tourskin 23:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. I don't do Fagbox 360. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:11 05 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Chill out dude, are you always high :D 216.99.59.170 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No! Its on PC - its so awesome!!! Tourskin 08:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked/Unblocked for 3RR violation

I blocked you for a 3RR violation and then realised that your last "revert" did not remove the content that the other editor had added - a comprehensive edit summary would have made this easier to see. You can be blocked for less then 4 reverts and you must admit yourself that your edit summaries and talk page contributions were borderline uncivil. I would therefore have been within policy to allow the block to stand . I have however unblocked you because you were using the talk page to discuss the editing dispute. You may not be so lucky in the future as you have a lengthy block log and we are now reaching the point where patience with edit warring will begin to wear thin. Please take this as a salutary reminder of the need to exercise restraint when engaged in an edit war. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Thanks for the unblock, but my IP is still blocked :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:15 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Let me try and fix that. Hang on one sec. --Haemo 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think for some reason it didn't unblock your IP when Spartaz unblocked you -- it should be fixed now. --Haemo 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks. And I'll try to avoid getting blocked from now on :) Peace! — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:49 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians in Lebanon?

Hi EliasAlucard, I have noticed that you refer many Lebanese Christians as Assyrians?, I even saw a list of Assyrian-Swedish people which two Christians from Lebanon was included (Josef fares and Fares Fares) I am a Christians Lebanese and have never heard that they do refer themselves as Assyrians, maybe something I am not familiar with, if possible could you be so kind and explain this. Cheers! Nancy usa 08:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Kifik Nancy? I just so happen to be an Assyrian from Lebanon :) Are you a Maronite? Check this out: http://www.aina.org/releases/2003/convention6753.htm the part about Walid Phares. I don't know if the Fares family are Assyrians, I just took it from the Swedish Wikipedia — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:47 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ilya Salkind with Susannah York.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ilya Salkind with Susannah York.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've just blocked User:Irqirq for personal attacks on this page, and generally being disruptive. Cheers. --Haemo 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I suspect that he is User:Nochi (same habits on same articles). Should be checked up, unless of course you've blocked him indefinitely. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:53 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it; he's currently only blocked for 3 days, but if I find evidence of sockpuppetry, I'll extend it indefinitely. --Haemo 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some articles for you to investigate: Sumerian people (started by Nochi, continued by Irqirq), Arab Jews (especially its talk page) and then most notably, User:Nochi and User:Irqirq have basically the exact same user pages. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:24 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a checkuser request; it would help me out if you chimed in with your evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nochi. --Haemo 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the RFCU; I was going to do it myself, but too lazy. Here are some examples: Nochi talking about Marsh Arabs being "Sumerians", which incidentally Irqirq is doing here. Another thing is their basically identical talk pages: [4] and [5] There's more, I'll try to remember some more of the articles Nochi was involved in. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:48 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Hey again

Tourskin has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lets spread our brotherly love for one another, as a dark anniversary approaches. I know that Assyrians also have many dark anniversaries.

Well, take care!Tourskin 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

<--- Hey man, check out my Cat — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:40 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Dude thats ur cat? It is, in the words of Borat, "VERY NICE!". I would call it cute but u see after one spends their years in a boys high school, such words become defunct in ones mind. Wish I had a cat but I dont think i could ever take care of it or have the time. Tourskin 06:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Jews

Regarding Template:Infobox Jews: I added a cite for the countries with the largest Jewish populations and left "fact" tags on the ones that weren't specified in the source I found. The cite shows up as a footnote on any page where the template is used, such as Jew.

I made a mistake yesterday of keeping a name on the reference that conflicted with another footnote at Jew; I've corrected that. I'm not sure what else you're looking for. Do you want the same footnote next to every population figure? I'll put it there if that's what you'd like, but the footnote already says "Population data from a 2006 study by The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Something similar to this: Template:Assyrian ethnicity. Shalom and Shlama! — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:37 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but the Jewish populations from the top (Total) through Mexico all come from a single source. I'll put the same footnote next to each number. Shlama! — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:25 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

your Template:Assyrian ethnicity is just a pov fork intended to hide away your continued edit-warring on the infobox contents. Don't do that. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your conspiracy theories, but I just thought it was neat to do it like the Jewish infobox template. It's nice to be accused of intentions you don't have, however. Especially coming from a user who's constantly involved in edit wars like yourself. I feel honoured. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:28 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules. I have explained my edits on talk. You had nothing to say to argue against them short of nationalist outbursts with no content. You are clearly not neutral in this question, and you have to back up your opinions closely with published sources. Elias, you are not far away now from an WP:RFAR as a single-topic edit warring account. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously dab, what's your problem? Why don't you go and remove Template:Infobox Jews from the Jew article? And for your information, I do edit lots of other non-Assyrian articles. My entire edit history does not consist of Assyrian articles. You are in fact removing academic sources, for some unexplained reason. On top of that, you are trying to blackmail me into submission by threats with arbitration. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:05 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that template wasn't branched out in the middle of a revert war. I do not remove "academic sources" that have any relevance to the article topic. Your "sources" are just an excuse to include paragraph-length quotes in footnotes. What they are in fact "referencing" isn't even disputed. Look, I have no special interest in the Assyrians. I am completely neutral on this, and I have no stakes in it at all. My attention was caught by your blatanty dishonest polemics, and your continued refusal to respect NPOV is beginning to get my goat. If you do not begin to back down and respect Wikipedia guidelines, you will only make me care more about this case, and dig deeper for misrepresentations. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what: I am not backing down in any way. You go ahead and dig deeper. You'll not only realise that I'm not bullshitting you, but that I'm in actuality completely NPOV, and that I'm just telling you like it is. You can start digging deeper right here. Go ahead and listen to what they have to say. You don't have to believe them, just go ahead and listen and take what they're saying into consideration. Once that is finished, you can look here for a lot more content. Oh and by the way, don't forget to verify Benne's "sources." Good luck with that. As for the template, honestly, I have no hidden agenda behind it. I was going to verify the Jewish population, and I found their template, and thought that was neat. So I created an Assyrian infobox template. I wasn't expecting you to haunt me because of it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:30 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean Christians

What do you think moving the page to History of the Chaldean Catholic Church? And also you need to remove the ethnic infobox from the page, because by using it, it is basically saying that Chaldean Christians are an ethnic group. Chaldean 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

is basically saying that Chaldean Christians are an ethnic group — And that's what we are: an ethnic group which is Assyrian. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:42 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

No, a seperate ethnic group, hence the different page from Assyrian people. Chaldean 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But the sources cited in Chaldean Christians all say Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:47 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Assyrian Religion [Sargonism]

God, Religion, Science, Jesus, and Satan... Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha too, hmmm? I think that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally and the same would go for the Koran or any other [popular] religious scripture. I believe that there is a logical explanation for everything. I am not ruling out the existance of a [living] god [as traditionally defined] but find it impossible to prove or disprove. Logically, it would seem impossible for a god to exist. However, I believe that existance as a whole, or the universe for that matter, to be "God." I do NOT interpret God in the traditional sense with that said.

I think that all the great "religious" [or "holy] people of our [documented] history such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha were just people, perhaps very smart people. I believe they were preaching to people who lived in those times in which literally they did. How then could someone of that time of a higher intellect [that maybe had an idea of what the future held] possibly have related to common folk, other than reaching them on their level?

There are many ways to reach people philosophically without saying things directly. There are allegories, metaphors, allusions, etc. Sometimes you can say very powerful things that strike one's attention yet mean something other than the actual stated words. "God created the heavens and earth." Let us assume that God is a metaphor for the universe. Assuming that the big bang occurred [or something similar to that] what if that force that led to the big bang is an [intellectually advanced] philosopher's way of communicating that this "force" [ultimately] led to our existance.

Einstein believed that "God" is the embodiment of the laws of science, physics, and nature. I believe that there is no way to prove in terms of absolutes weather God, [again] as traditionally defined exists or not. Studies show that spirituality and ritual are healthy to the body and mind. I think that the soul is an oversimplification for the unity of the body and mind and that there is no [ghastly] soul as traditionally defined. I am not against following a religion philosophically but as to interpret something as the Bible or Koran which are full of historical inaccuracies literally [as fact] is illogical and to live by it word for word is absolutely ludicrous. Believe what you believe but understand that you were most likely born into your belief and out of ignorant pride, blind faith, or fondness of [or fear] never abandoned or changed your religion. I'm not asking you to do so but think about this. Why not start a philosophical religion? It could recognize the great teachers of all the faiths [though it wouldn't have to] that had an impact on humanity up to this state of time [perhaps even some lesser known ones]. Maybe it could use [some if not all] their philosophies but in a contemporary manner in a logical interpretation. Your irrational thought is better suited to being used artistically to depict abstract thoughts into works of poetry, painting, philosophy, etc. Don't use your irrational thought to interpret irrational thought as literal because you'll be living in a fantasy world.

I don't believe there is a heaven and hell as traditionally defined. It is a state of mind and existance. As I stated earlier that the Universe [or existance] is "God" and "he" can cast you into the land [state] of torment [hell] or bliss [heaven]. Satan as defined in Judaism is not a devilish [Hades] creature but rather the adversary of man [prosecutor] that is sent by God to test man's loyalty to God. He stands with God on judgment day as a witness to testify to God what you have done. Satan in a rational interpretation could imply impure thought or temptation. Temptation and Guilt can consume your soul [as I defined it]. Stress can lead to both physical and mental health problems. It can lead to a very miserable existance. However, there is hope without belief in the traditional God.

You don't need to believe someone is watching over you to do good. Humanity has to have faith in itself in order to survive. Without that faith we are all doomed. We must evolve into greater beings and become "God-like." God as defined in the scriptures had many names. Knowledge and Wisdom are names of God. If we use our knowledge and wisdom then we can sustain our existance eternally [eternal life: the continuity of human survival; indefinitely]. We can chose life or death as the "scriptures" [teachings] have taught us. "It was written in the book of life," but you get to pick your part to play. Chose your own destiny. Amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Burn heretic. Just joking of course.Tourskin 06:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, stop insulting Jesus by making him equal with a paedophile. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:28 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

You interpreted it wrong. I'm just stating that instead of worshiping the image of Jesus why not follow his WORD or PHILOSOPHY. Jesus is also referred to as the WORD of God. I'm not Atheist as I stated before. I just don't believe in a "magical" God. The bible says "God" is inconceivable or incomprehensible to man. Everything else is an oversimplification including the doctrine of the Trinity. Anyways I'm not recruiting people to think like me. I'm just putting my thought out there so people can understand how I think. That's all. Even Muhammad, whatever wrongs he may have done did a lot for Arabs and though maybe it was detrimental to others he is looked upon favorably by more than a billion people and in no way am I comparing him to or making him equal to Jesus. I'm just appealing to a wide audience. Look at it from multiple perspectives and not from a religious or strictly philosophical view. Just take it's many points and interpret them into many meanings as logically as possible. Sharru Kinnu III 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Helen_Slater_as_Supergirl.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Helen_Slater_as_Supergirl.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Helen_Slater_as_Supergirl.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Helen_Slater_as_Supergirl.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Military history of the Assyrian Empire Part 2!!

I need your help a little bit - the GA review of this article has attracted the attention of people who have demoted this article to B class. AAAAH!!! well its got a bit of work to do b4 it gets to A class again so I was hoping you could lend a hand.

When I am on Wikipedia, I switch between editting Byzantine and Assyrian articles. Right now I am in Byzantine mode, cos the Assyrian convention of 2007 really sapped all of my assyrian nationalism, so I feel very low on "Assyrian Energy". But don't worry, hearing a few more troubles of our people in Iraq will fire my blood and bring me back. Tourskin 06:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But don't worry, hearing a few more troubles of our people in Iraq will fire my blood and bring me back. — Allow me to use an awesome one liner from the awesome video game Contra III: The Alien Wars: “Let's attack aggressively!” — Contra 3 EliasAlucard|Talk 15:27 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks Elias for the note on the article talk page. I've replied to Tourskin on the same topic, so I thought I'd drop a link to that reply here (in case you hadn't already seen it). Cheers! EyeSerene^TALK 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unblock

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:

I should be unblocked because this block was an abuse of admin power, and I was blocked simply for expressing my opinion on a talk page. Several users have complained about dab's consistent revert-warring with me and Chaldean regarding dab's removal of a chart on the talk page.[6] Just when dab removed it again,[7] immediately, within minutes, El_C locked the article.[8] Now I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me that they're cooperating on this behind the scenes. Anyway, I complained on the talk page about dab removing it and called it vandalism because that's what I think it is.[9] El_C immediately blocked me because I expressed my opinion over this. Dab is removing content from the article, properly sourced content to academic scholars, not because he has a reason to remove it, but because he dislikes me and thinks I'm biased. This case should be investigated by several admins. The given reason for this block, "disruption", is false. I was blocked for discussing on the talk page, not for disruption.

Decline reason:

The block is endorsed for inappropriate talk page conduct, specifically personal attacks. You called another user's edits in a content dispute "vandalism", which they are not. You also made several derogatory allegations against that user (e.g. [10]). You have continued your unsupported allegations of abuse and other misconduct in this request. You are not blocked for being in a content dispute, but for your incivil and disruptive conduct of that dispute. Remember that ad hominem attacks will seldom, if ever, help you here. — Sandstein 13:20, 14 September 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.

Please format your unblock request so that the reason for unblock is visible. Sandstein 13:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I did it just like shown above: {{unblock|your reason here}} — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:04 14 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

The only thing dab has been doing, is ad hominem attacking me on the talk page. he's not debating the content, but he's debating my background. Yet for some reason, he's not getting blocked because he's an admin. This is clearly not a justified block because it's certainly not an impartial block. You call this "derogatory allegations"? What about this then? He's obviously referring to me. I think that's very derogatory. And it's certainly not civil. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:28 14 Sept, 2007 (UTC)