User talk:EliasAlucard - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bellwether BC (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 27 February 2008 (→Unblock this lame block: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:15, 27 February 2008 by Bellwether BC (talk | contribs) (→Unblock this lame block: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Please leave messages by using this feature.

Reversion

Recently you reverted an edit I made with this summary:

(Revert bloodofox: the Nazis rejected Christianity (see Alfred Rosenberg) and some Nazis also advocated a return to germanic paganism)

This is not true. I'd like to know who you're referring to regarding "Germanic paganism". No Nazi figure advocated a return to Germanic paganism but instead the introduction of a certain form of Germanic Christianity, which goes to the very deepest regions of the SS, the only area where this stuff was even happening in the Third Reich - take a look at Karl Maria Wiligut and his Krist. None of this stuff has anything to do with historical Germanic paganism and is instead warped Christianity dressed in Wagnerian trappings combined with poor research. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the Nazis advocated a Germanic form of Christianity (Positive Christianity, which was largely de-Judaized and anti-Jewish, see also German Christians). However, Alfred Rosenberg, a leading Nazi ideologue, rejected Christianity. The same is true for Hitler, when he said: “The old beliefs will be brought back to honor again. The whole secret knowledge of nature, of the divine, the demonic. We will wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race.” (see also Hitler's Table Talk). Read this source. It covers aspects of neo-Pagan ideas that circulated in the Nazi German regime. There never was any successful attempt to replace Christianity in the Third Reich, but surely, they idea crossed their mind. Oh and by the way, many neo-Nazis today also reject Christianity because of its Judaic origins, and this is largely due to Hitler himself and his constant likening of Christianity with Bolshevism (in his Table Talk). By the way, you removed sourced content. Have you checked the source? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well familiar with the Third Reich's varied interests in paganism and turn of the century occult ideas, which is no news. What this comes down to is proper wording, the source requires a direct quote. Does it say that? If so, it needs to be stated that the source states this. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. Well, here's the source. I don't have access to the entire article, but if you can read it all, let me know. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't. I would have solved the problem by just saying that the source claims it however I can't be sure it states it since I don't have access to it. As you probably know, it's easy to warp sources and so I tend to be very critical of poor sourcing. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That is also why I'm very fond of using the cite web/journal/news/book template, and its very useful quote function, in order to avoid confusion and alleviate collaboration with other Wikipedians. But it might be useful to check out that source, and if the source doesn't corroborate the claim made in the article, it might be good to check up who added this content into the article and perhaps give him a warning for misrepresenting sources. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding attitude. If I do come across the source at some point, I will correct the impression but in the mean time I don't know what would be the proper tag to note that it cannot be confirmed if that is being stated by the reference or what the deal is with it. I have a personal policy that I do not add any information to Misplaced Pages that is not directly sourced - and sourced solidly - perhaps I ought to look at this template you're talking about. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Some templates you should look into: {{cite web}} {{cite journal}} {{cite book}} {{cite news}} and some other useful templates: {{verify credibility}} {{specify}} and {{citequote}}. I agree with your personal policy, and that's why I tend to only cite sources that are readily accessible to most people (such as Google Books with preview), or I simply use the quote function when it is books I've checked up in a library. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will probably get some use out of those. You are, of course, welcome to restore the content if you think there's an appropriate tag for the issue source. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian-stub

I am not as you put it waging war on Assyrian-stub. I am however, holding it to the same standards as other stub types. In the case of historians, such as John Joseph, they do not get stub tags based on their field of study. Even if they did, given that he covered a broader topic area than just Assyrian culture and history in his studies, he would get {{MEast-stub}} instead. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, look, I know this is part of your delete the Assyrian stub campaign. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not in favor of deleting Assyrian-stub. While it has been used for POV pushing, and thus unfortunately needs close watching, it is a useful stub for the same reasons as {{Romani-stub}} as the Assyrians are a stateless ethnic group. But that doesn't mean that it becomes a grab bag to glean every remotely related stub article. The situation is similar to that for {{SouthCarolina-stub}}. I'm a proud South Carolinian, but that stub template does not belong on every stub article of a South Carolinian, only those who are notable for things specific to South Carolina. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can finally see your arguement. But it still doesn't make any sense of you nominating it for deletion. Remove it from pages where you don't think it belongs, but why would you want the stub to be deleted as a whole? Chaldean (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in your point of view, Caerwine, on what kind of articles do we have legal permission to use this stub before it's considered a felony? John Joseph has written several books on modern Assyrians, he has been involved in the Assyrian naming dispute controversy, he is an Assyrian (from the Church of the East). If anyone, he should be categorised with this stub. There's also no limit to my knowledge on what sort of stub categories we are allowed and not allowed to use on articles. Stubs are frequently categorised with multiple stubs, and no one complains, unless of course, it's the "CONTROVERSIAL" Assyrian stub. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 08:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't nominate this stub for deletion, though I did comment on the debate. As for John Joseph and other stub articles, I'm judging what stub templates are appropriate by what is in the article. The details you mention were not mentioned in the article at the time I deleted the stub template from it. I judge what templates belong on a stub article based on what is already mentioned in the article about the subject. While some of those details you mention do argue for his article being stubbed with that stub, that he is an Assyrian (from the Church of the East) is irrelevant unless he's actually involved in the religious hierarchy. Otherwise, we'd be applying {{RC-bio-stub}} to every stub biography about a Roman Catholic even if all they do is attend mass twice a year. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh!

Yo right back at ya, my semi-Semitic brotha! Heh, well, it's a cliché, but things are becoming a bit complicated in real life, girl-trouble, education stuff, I don't have the energy for real creative Wiki-nerding right at the moment, but that's temporary, for sure. What articles do you think we're missing? And how's it going? Funkynusayri (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I see. Good luck with all that. Well, how about Arab nationalism? I think the current article could need to be spruced up somewhat. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nokia N96

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nokia N96, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent 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 agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Nokia N96. Q 08:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Barsum

Couldn't find nothing expect this peace of his work Chaldean (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles here about him: http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/Code/Articles/Nationalism.html (follow the links) and this source too: http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/images/Articles/Perley/ArDocsDP6.html Could easily make an interesting article out of David B. Perley from these sources. I'm just too lazy at the moment. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, check out this forum - great place to duke it out with Turks, Kurds, Arabs lol Chaldean (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Already checked it out. The guy has some nerves. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean Catholic Category

Some son of a gun has added a deletion template. I removed it, because there was no discussion regarding it but we should keep an eye on it. Add it to our increasing list of articles attacked by people with nothing better to do. Tourskin (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, that's for all religious categories though. See for instance en:Category:Catholic_Wikipedians. Don't take it too personal :) EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

too late, I've already began sacking towns and deporting people from Lebanon to Iraq. Tourskin (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Assyrian-stub

I separated my last edit into two separate edits. The first dealt with cleaning up the wikicode in the template, while the second dealt with the flag, since unfortunately you are likely to revert it again. If you wish this taken to mediation, please do so. It's not a major enough problem to me that I feel the need to do so. Stub templates do not require icons, and when they are potentially controversial, they are discouraged. Non-state flags generally encounter controversy. The available information I have indicates that while the Assyrian Universal Alliance is the largest and most wide spread Assyrian organization, it is not the sole one, nor one that all Assyrian organizations associate themselves with. As such, using the flag of the AUA to represent all Assyrian people makes a POV statement. That is my concern with using the AUA flag as the icon for this stub template, not an anti-Assyrian agenda as you have alleged that I have. My concerns over this stub have been solely those that I apply to all stub types. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy regarding the Assyrian flag has nothing to do with AUA. AUA designed the flag, yes. It is today accepted as the national Assyrian flag. The "controversy," which you keep referring to, and picked up from User:White Cat, has to do with the fact that the Assyrian people, aspire a national homeland currently occupied, by among other, Turkey. That is the entire reason User:White Cat wants to delete the stub because it uses the Assyrian flag. He's probably Turkish and wants it deleted because of that. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Accepted by whom? What of non-Christians of the region who also claim the heritage of the Ancient Assyrians? That's one reason I was in favor of splitting out Ancient Assyria to a separate stub type. If Assyrian-stub dealt with only the modern Assyrian people, it would be far less problematic in any number of ways, including the flag icon. As for the usage of the flag by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Assyria, dealing with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting is more than WikiProjecting for me and stub templates are within the purview of that project moreso than other Wikiprojects that make use of the stub types developed for them. (You may wish to also take note of my reply to the previous discussion on Assyrian-stub above.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Accepted by whom? — By the modern Assyrian nation. What of non-Christians of the region who also claim the heritage of the Ancient Assyrians? — They don't count, because their numbers are very few and insignificant. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That opinion is precisely what makes the use of the AUA flag for a stub with the current scope of Assyrian-stub controversial. As for the map icon you finally chose, it's a little bland at stub icon size, but other than that, not a problem. Hopefully, when the *.png map is turned into an *.svg map as suggested, the map maker will chose colors that have greater contrast. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Join us

Hi Elias

There is something much different i.e. more serious than Misplaced Pages - http://en.citizendium.org/Main_Page. All we here are serious professionals - with known personal names, biographies, and with serious and sincere wish to build a true online encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.47.110 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the invite. I've actually been contemplating on joining Citizendium, but I don't know if I have enough credentials to be allowed to edit. From what I understand, Citizendium is more or less an elite encyclopaedia. I would really like to edit Citizendium though. My rationale for why Citizendium is the next best thing is because it's less egalitarian than Misplaced Pages, which means, in the long run, higher quality; in other words, quality over quantity, and I like that about Citizendium. I especially like that they don't allow anonymous IPs to edit, which means less vandalism and similar nonsense. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural nationalism"

I've posted a question at Talk:Sweden Democrats#"Cultural nationalism" that you may be able to answer. It concerns an edit of yours. Thanks. Will Beback NS (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jewish title

Please speak with the deleting admin: JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay drama

Here. Who knew that the BLP policy is racist... Will 00:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What? How is WP:BLP racist? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user's saying that you're anti-Semetic. The link I followed took me straight to you quoting the second paragraph from BLP. (and I'm being a bit sarcastic in my original post to you). Will 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. Well, it's no big deal really. I even removed it as off topic, but no blood cat restored it and just kept asking for it. It's his own fault really. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to involve myself, but to be fair, you really shouldn't use comments like "If you feel offended every single time someone is critical of Jews, such as Kevin MacDonald, you have a serious emotional problem, or, you're probably Jewish." That should be considered uncivil, and you don't need to attack him in that way. If you read your paragraph, you'll see that you could have made the same point without it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure, BUT, he made a lot more uncivil comments afterwards. Besides, he's not getting offended, only pretending to be. He was even laughing around afterwards. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Socratic barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Good job for your contributions at Talk:Kevin_B._MacDonald while keeping cool. It takes exceptional courage and integrity to stand up against accusations of hate. Keep up the good work. Goon Noot (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. Thumbs up! — EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

I do not want anti-Semites posting on my talk page. Post on the relevant pages, or other users pages. I do not want you on my talk page. Your posts will be removed immediately. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want me defending myself on your talk page, then quit talking shit about me behind my back. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

...as a note, users are allowed to remove discussions from their own talk pages, per WP:TALK. seicer | talk | contribs 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What part of STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE are you having difficulty comprehending?! I'll "talk shit" about you anywhere I please. Do not get belligerent with me. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to User:Seicer: I think it's time to block Boodlesthecat here in order to cool him off. Despite several warnings, he's been calling me a lot of stuff (among others, "antisemitic loser"), and now he's saying that he'll continue doing this everywhere he wants. He definitely needs a 72 hours block (and some anger management). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking no sides here, there are rampant issues with civility on both sides. I suggest both users cool down, edit other articles, and come back with a cleared head. seicer | talk | contribs 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm taking his side - I advised him on how to do what he wants to do in an effective manner, rather than the way he was doing it - and told him, also, not to call you a Nazi. You can be sure, though, that I won't be taking your side. I'm Jewish and Zionist, after all, so why would you want me on your side? Avruch 16:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Jewish and Zionist, after all, so why would you want me on your side? — That's the exact reason I told you not to take his side. I want you to be impartial in this dispute (and so far, you have been too, and you deserve credit for that). There's a political agenda going on here on Misplaced Pages to slander and misrepresent anyone who is critical of anything, and academics critical of Jews are not excluded. I don't hate you for being Zionist and Jewish (in fact, I have always believed that Israel deserves to exist as a Jewish state because Arabs have more land than they can handle). That doesn't mean that I think Jews should be exempt from valid criticism whenever there exists a need for it. I hope you get what I'm saying and realise that this is not "hatred", and that we can act like adults here in this matter. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment directly above, taken in complete isolation, is reasonable. No fact of background or circumstances exempts a person, group of people or government from valid criticism (except infants!). The point where we depart company is on the issue of what constitutes "valid criticism" - along with the habit of lumping "Jews and Zionists" together as a monolith, as if we all had exactly the same views and supported everything all the others did. In any event, I haven't done an in depth review of your history here. I suggested to Bloodlesthecat that he do so if he finds it necessary, and post his findings at AN/I for review. Hopefully, for your sake (and not "your" as in "you on Misplaced Pages"), there is nothing requiring further attention. Avruch 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No of course not all Jews should be viewed as a monolithic. There are many good, reasonable and decent Jews out there. But, many Jews, and especially the politically organised Jews – often Zionists in nature – abuse their political influence and get away with it. And they get away with it, by slandering people like Kevin B. MacDonald, and that's where I react. I don't think MacDonald hates Jews and he does bring up some healthy criticism on Jewish power, which I recommend Jews to read because they might learn a thing or two about it. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should point out - if you expect to be taken seriously on any issue of any sort at any point in the future, you should leave Stormfront and disavow your participation there. Take it as a lesson learned - in order to maintain your credibility, you shouldn't associate with a cadre composed mostly of bigots and Nazi-wannabes. Avruch 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I registered spontaneously on Stormfront for the sake of replying to this thread about Assyrians, (I'm Assyrian) which is negative propaganda by Megalommatis. I couldn't post anything though for at least three days, so I didn't bother. After a while I participated in some discussions and that's about it. I am not affiliated with those guys and I consider most of them to be hypocritical immature dipshits (even though, they are capable of making a few good points every now and then). I have, however, intended to start a few threads later on and criticise some of their hypocrisy about Social Darwinism and stuff like that, and see if they can put up with an honest debate without banning me for being Assyrian. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting talk page discussion relevant to Wikiquette complaint

See here. I am reverting per admin's instructions: "Archive: take out of archive if you wish." Stop deleting it. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He said clearly, that you should revert if you feel there's anything to discuss. Obviously, you're not discussing. You just want other Wikipedians to see what a nasty "Nazi supporter" I am, like anyone seriously cares. Stop restoring it if you're not going to discuss anything. It was archived by admin because he felt it didn't lead anywhere. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed it extensively, and it's posted for others to review and discuss. Stop suppressing it--not my fault you filled a talk page with anti-Semitic rants. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's not my fault either that I posted some very needed truth on the talk page. I'm not trying to "hide" it. It's just not relevant and it was archived by an admin. He told you to unarchive it if you had anything to discuss. You don't have anything to discuss and there's no point in unarchiving it because no one is interested in discussing it anyway. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hattin

Hey, someone before you vandalized this article to state that saladin had only 3,000 men whilst the crusaders had about 15,000. I know that you don't endorseull shit dude, so heads up!

What? I've never edited the Battle of Hattin article. You sure you haven't mistaken me for somebody else? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait... forgive me, but your name is not in the history page. Wierd. I thought I saw it. Pah-khal-ta my friend.Tourskin (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please note: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages.

Some suggestions:

Discuss the article, not the subject;
Discuss the edit, not the editor;
Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wagnerites

You have recently recreated or reposted material at Category:Wagnerites which previously was deleted in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this page without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Misplaced Pages is not. If you disagree with the page's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for racist rants. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This is your final warning. Racist rants and personal attacks have no place on Misplaced Pages. You are setting yourself up for an indefinite block, I strongly suggest you reconsider. — Coren 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll be back. Tourskin (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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:

This block is ridiculous, one-sided, and done in the name of political correctness. Kevin B. MacDonald has stated that he is completely agnostic on the Holocaust, which means he might very well consider it to be Holohoax and he also testified on behalf of David Irving (a convicted "Holocast denier"). Just because I wrote that on his article's talk page, it doesn't mean that I should get a block for it. Also, why isn't User:Boodlesthecat blocked too for at least 72 hours? He's been WP:STALKing me on and off Wiki, he's been calling me all sorts of names instead of focusing on working and improving the article. This certainly is against Misplaced Pages's WP:CIVIL policy. He's been calling me Nazi several times despite that I'm not a Nazi. I called User:White Cat a Nazi once in a heated discussion and got a block instantly. Admins here have been very lenient on User:Boodlesthecat since they tacitly agree with him, and they've chosen side because they just can't stay neutral on the matter. And it's not a "racist rant" to write "Holohoax". That's not about race. The entire Holocaust, though certainly Jews did get killed in World War 2, is gravely abused now 70 years later. Benyamin Netanyahu, instead of taking responsibility for Israel's warmongering, accuses ethnic Europeans of trying to remove their "guilt" over the Holocaust when they criticise Israel over what the Jews are doing against the Palestinians and the Lebanese people. Blatant mind-insulting racist (racism against Europeans) nonsense like that coming from a politically influential Jew like Netanyahu, deserves ridicule. Bottom line is, this block is politically motivated. I did not vandalise any article, and I've been cool all the time when being insulted with heavily loaded charges and personal attacks from a user who should have been blocked. But it's all okay and justified by User:Boodlesthecat being on the "good side". This is ridiculous. I should be unblocked and given an apology for mistreatment. Also, I got blocked without discussion despite that User:Haemo protested against my block. Also, I didn't even get a fair chance to defend myself.

Decline reason:

It is clear you make too many political judgements, holohoax being an example. Learn from this, if you can't quote it don't say it. — David D. (Talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (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.

Second Unblock request

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

You must see the irony of posting a rant about race when that is the exact reason you were blocked. Take the time to cool off and think about this kind of behavior. Additionally, Boodlesthecat has been blocked. — IrishGuy 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this continued block. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't endorse a block this short for someone who has such a long block log and has already been warned about this type of behavior. IronDuke 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally racist rants questioning an unquestionable fact aren't the best way to contest a block. In fact, it might (and perhaps should) get your block extended. Just my $0.02. Bellwether _C 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Based on the numerous blocks this user has already received, this block should have been longer. The user's unblock requests don't show any recognition of error or intent to change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one being "racist" here. Misplaced Pages has a serious problem with free speech. I'm not posting "racist rants". I was discussing a forbidden topic on Talk:Kevin_B._MacDonald. No one gets blocked here for "Islamophobia", why the double standards? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block

Template:Indefblock ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support this action, though I would recommend AN/I-ing this one, just to be sure. Bellwether _C 00:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've re-opened the thread at WP:ANI#EliasAlucard still posting anti-Semitic rants on Misplaced Pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Also strongly suport. However, I fear AN/I might widen the drama, but it's up to Will. IronDuke 00:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Amen Benne _(talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose why an indefinite block all of a sudden? At the very least, block him for the time that was previously established, and see what happens afterwards. Elias has contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages, expressing his own POV on a talk page, whatever it is, shouldn't be enough to get him banned forever. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks man. Finally someone with some honesty. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock this lame block

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

Request reason:

I've been blocked indefinitely by Will here above. I think this is an unfair block. I've been a member on Misplaced Pages for over three years. During these years, I've created MANY articles which have grown into good articles. I've provided a lot of scholarly sources in many articles, and I've generally speaking, had a good flow in the articles I've worked with. At the very least, I deserve some credit. This indefinite block is due to politically incorrect opinions. Arguably, it's a thought control thing. Look, I can easily come back here with new accounts, at any given day of the week. But I don't want to do that because I don't believe in sockpuppetry. To justify this indefinite block, Will gave an example of me discussing the Holocaust on Talk:David Duke, where I disregarded the Zyclon B gassing as nonsense, and gave a parallel of the debunked myth that "the Nazis made soap out of Jews". So what? Big deal. Are you not allowed to have opinions here on Misplaced Pages? Politically incorrect as they may be, you can't shut out members with this rationale, because it really makes an example out of yourselves and how much you advocate a thought control encyclopaedia. And look, "Holocaust denial" or whatever you want to call it, is the future anyway. People are eventually going to realise and wake up that much of the so called Holocaust is a complete fraud. Of course Jews were murdered in the second world war, but I hate to break it down to you, it's simply not the truth we've been indoctrinated with at school, and it's about time people wake up from this poor joke. Norman Finkelstein has been leading in criticism of the Holocaust, and more and more people are disregarding Holocaust dogma nowadays. You block me over writing "Holohoax" on a talk page, you only make an example out of yourselves what kind of pathetic intolerant dipshits you are. This block, is unacceptable and it's politically motivated. Where does it stop though? Because this clearly says a lot about Misplaced Pages and how unreliable Misplaced Pages actually is. When you block me over having "unpopular opinions", you are really just showing Misplaced Pages's own POV problems. Misplaced Pages simply won't tell the truth in politically controversial articles because only one-sided editors are allowed to work on them and the ones who have unfavourable views get blocked indefinitely. Welcome to the new totalitarian 1984, in which Misplaced Pages serves as the propaganda machine.

Decline reason:

As amusing as that rant was....this "pathetic intolerant dipshit" is unable to see a valid unblock request in that mass of text. Denied. — IrishGuy 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's good that you at the very least realise that you are a dipshit. By the way, what's going to happen with my talk pages and archives? Are they going to get deleted? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's uncommon to delete a talk page. More likely the pages might be blanked or just left as is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen both user pages and talk pages get deleted (as in their history). I'd like mine to stay untouched. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse this block as well - if Misplaced Pages is considered unreliable by someone who believes the Holocaust is a fraud, then so be it and I can't say it doesn't make me happy. Misplaced Pages isn't a government, you do not have a right to free speech here, your presence has become disruptive and it has become evident that you insist on expressing "opinions" which, while your opinions, have no place here. We block racists, pedophiles, and now Holocaust deniers. Tell your friends. Avruch 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just preparing to write something very similar. Instead, I'll just say, "Ditto that." Bellwether _C 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, you should add Jews to that category. I hear they're racists too. Arguably also genocide deniers since they've covered up the genocide of the Bolsjevik Jews. But of course, you as a Jew are going to endorse this block. I didn't expect otherwise. Your vote shouldn't count because you are biased in this matter. Thanks for bunching me together with racists and pedophiles. I think that's a flattering insult, but compared to Zionists they're good company. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's just his own POV, as expressed on a talk page, not in an article. Also, he's not denying the Holocaust took place as far as I could see, but details of it. People can deny for example the Armenian genocide all they want on talk pages here, but they can't question the details of the Jewish genocide. That's a double standard, and I'm kind of sad to see Misplaced Pages take the side of a specific POV through its admins.

If denial of genocide is a bannable offense, it should apply to any genocide. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

- Well what do you expect, Funky? These are all pathetic Judaized admins. They have no honour anyway and the sad part is that they think they're the good guys. By the way funky, I highly recommend you to read the Holocaust Industry. Don't worry though, in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)r
  - Note the anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. These types need indef-ed with the pedophiles. Bellwether _C 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not the Holocaust denial that you are being blocked for. Rather, it is the disruptive behavior in which you are editing - ie personal attacks and uncivil commentary.. --Veritas (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, my edits haven't been disruptive. Surely, there has been some content disputes, but they've all been in good faith from my part. I keep my personal POV out as best as I can in articles. On talk pages, I'm honest about where I stand on the subject. And again, it's not antisemitism. I don't hate Jews. I just think many of them are hypocrites in politics. That's all. My block here however is because of the Holycaust. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, Holocaust deniers are one (short, very short) step above pedophiles. Bellwether _C 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I myself don't have an issue with the traditional Holocaust narrative, only how it has been exploited subsequently, so I won't take sides in the actual debate, but I do believe in free speech (which would apply on talk pages here on Misplaced Pages), and that's why I don't think people should be banned for their views alone.

By the way, it doesn't seem like Elias has been indefinitely blocked for his style of editing alone, he was accused of making "racist rants". Funkynusayri (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the block log states racist rants, incivility, POV pushing, edit warring, disruption. A quick glance over this talk page illustrates that the log is correct. IrishGuy 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Define "racist"? It's not racism to speak the truth on how Jews are (i.e., that they are the biggest racists). It's popularly called racism however, but that's a fallacy. As far as incivility goes, what the hell? You've blocked me indefinitely. Don't expect me to turn the other cheek when I get treated like shit over nothing. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't check that, simply read what was stated on this page. Again, Elias has contributed a lot to articles here, unrelated to the Holocaust and similar, shouldn't his high level of positive contributions be taken into account? Funkynusayri (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. When you reveal yourself as a blatant, POV-pushing, incivil racist, it's over. Bellwether _C 02:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)