User talk:EliasAlucard

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

Untitled[edit]

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

EliasAlucard (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was banned for political reasons, because I wrote "holohoax". Is it specified in the rules that one must adhere to prevailing Holocaust dogma in order to be allowed to edit Wikipedia? I'm absolutely serious in asking this question. I'm not trolling or anything. You can't ban someone over a reason like that, it's censorship. A lot of members protested against my ban but I wasn't even given a fair chance to defend myself. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, it's not neutral to block someone because he doesn't support the Holocaust Industry; this is political censorship. I've been banned for over two years now, completely ignoring the fact that I contributed with a lot of sources and articles. Look, I can easily register a sockpuppet account and successfully edit as much as I want to without ever getting detected. It's not difficult for me to do that. I haven't done this however, and I'm not going to either because I don't believe in such methods. I just want to edit a few articles that badly need sources, under my current username. I don't want to do this from my IP address or under a new account. Will Beback banned me without asking for permission or discussing it with other administrators. And he did it because of political censorship, he didn't act neutrally. EliasAlucard / Discussion 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Of course we can ban Holocaust deniers. Wikipedia is dedicated to propagating the truth; holocaust denial is all about propagating lies and hatred. There's a natural incompatibility. Stick with your natural allies, such as Stormfront; you'll be much happier there, as we will never tolerate your particular intellectual aberration here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (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.

I was just about to deny this request myself, but Jpgordon beat me to it. You've been community banned--meaning that not just one user, but the entire community, has decided you can't be allowed to edit. Even without that to consider, your history shows you're not capable of interacting in a civil manner with others, so I wouldn't be willing to unblock even without the community ban. Blueboy96 05:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason given to ban me is anti-intellectual, censorship, and against the WP:NPOV policy. Turkish members who deny the Armenian Genocide don't get banned here last I checked—why this double standard? And I can damn well interact in a civil manner with other members, I only don't do that with trolls like Boodlesthecat who was himself banned for a year because of his stupid revert wars. You haven't given a justified reason to ban me. Banning someone because he doesn't believe in the Holocaust is censorship and you're banning me because you're acting on your emotions. Members here don't get banned if they believe the flat or they oppose the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about conforming to ad populum beliefs. The Holocaust is only going to get more questioned and examined sooner or later when people are allowed to question it without repercussions, and people like me who get banned and censored over it will be proven right sooner or later, which will make this ban look ridiculous in retrospect. My ban should be taken up to arbitration, it was not done right, and it's clearly one-sided when fanatic Turkish nationalists are given a free reign to edit the Armenian Genocide article. That you fail to realise how politicised Wikipedia is, and without shame pretend that Wikipedia is about truth, says a lot about the corruption on Wikipedia. You have no honour. EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You've just proven the main reason why you were banned. Talk page disabled. Blueboy96 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Turkish members who deny the Armenian Genocide don't get banned here last I checked—why this double standard? This question stays unanswered. Why is one thing allowed but the other not?

Because The United Nations DOES NOT recognize "armenian genocide" as a genocide. Most of the Armenian genocide supporters are usually fanatic Germans or extreme right wing nationalists who are ashamed of their past and try to find a Genocide Partner which is totally Disgusting . that’s why nobody trusts people like you or your followers. EliasAlucard , instead of crying here , be a man and stop pointing fingers at others . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.30.210 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Really bad for many Wikipedia-articles. Many Assyrian-related articles have stood still since this block. Elias contributed so much to these articles! Shmayo (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I find his views abhorrent, this is a flagrant and loathsome usurping of free speech. Wikipedia may not be a "government", as someone remarked, but the rules do NOT stipulate that specific beliefs are unwelcome or must not be admitted/spoken of. If this is regarded as suitable justification for a ban... well, as far as I'm concerned this typifies the appalling behaviour of CERTAIN (in other words, not all) "cowboy" admins who appear to possess indemnity from any kind of serious scrutiny or indictment and are seldom questioned for their actions. And - yes, I have actually *seen* this, this isn't some fanciful interpretation, although I'm sure those with an agenda would disagree - if you *do* question them, as I have seen some doing, you are likely setting yourself up for a ban - indefinite or otherwise. I suppose someone will delete this paragraph - no doubt an admin, ha! Thereby proving my point. I have no real involvement in Wikipedia, nevertheless, as I am eccentric person (or so others claim), I squander hours trawling through old arbitrations, talk pages (users and articles), ban logs, AfDs, and such, for an insight into the politics of the website. Scintillating stuff. I however did watch this case closely when it occurred. Peace. 124.168.214.118 (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I should add, however, that I may or may not be missing something apropos this particular user. I am familiar with some of their antics, but not others, evidently. Still, the assertion in the unblock request above appears to be that said user was permanently community-banned for his views on the Holocaust, which, whilst totally misguided, should be respected as any other opinion. This whole notion of "community" banning is ridiculous, as it often only involves a miniscule proportion of users, most or all of whom have enmity towards the user in question. Ah well, that's life. 124.168.214.118 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

GRBerry[edit]

At the request of GRBerry, posting this here; can anyone looking at this user also read User talk:GRBerry/Archive 10#SELF NOTE. Thanks! – iridescent 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Any admin considering unblocking this user should first review the user's history and consult with me, the blocking admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
So, Will, don't you think it's time for me to get unblocked? I noticed the discussion on GRBerry's talk page. Since you blocked me, I think it should be your task to mentor me, because it's pretty much you alone requesting this. EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
How has you behavior changed since you were blocked? For what reason should you be unblocked? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I won't be discussing much on talk pages from now on. From now on, it'll be 90% pure edits, and that's all. The reason I should be unblocked is because I feel like improving some genetics section (e.g., this one, but some other ones too). I can't stand the poor quality (often barely cited too) some sections are in, and it frustrates me not being able to edit them. EliasAlucard / Discussion 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on the behavior that caused problems before. What did you do wrong then that you won't do again? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Admin, are you expecting the user you blocked to explain in length the mistakes he made in that tone? Gabr-el 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Can you suggest a better way of asking? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"What did you do wrong then that you won't do again" is rubbing it in the face a little - Elias knows well why he was blocked, he has implicitly promised not to do the same mistake again. Gabr-el 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for an explicit promise. If he doesn't know why he was blocked then he can't easily avoid making he same mistakes again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What "implicit promise"? Not even the slightest acknowledgment from him or apologies for having authored the vicious commentary here, replete with Holocaust denials and other garbage. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I won't be discussing much on talk pages from now on - Implies that he will not be speaking with "vicious commentary" that you mentioned. He has also shown his intentions on what to edit, which is the Assyrian Genetics section. He has expressed self-control in asking the person who blocked him to mentor him. Gabr-el 04:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on the behavior that caused problems before. What did you do wrong then that you won't do again? — I got blocked for writing "Holohoax" during a heated discussion in which User:Boodlesthecat was involved (who, probably, will be blocked soon, for being a trouble user fishing for problems: Proposed mentorship for Boodlesthecat). During my almost one year block, I've had time to cool off, and reflect on my blocking incident. I've come to understand that, Wikipedia is, to some extent, fiercely opposed to free speech. In the words of User:Avruch on my talk page: “Wikipedia isn't a government, you do not have a right to free speech here”.[1] (as if questioning and/or doubting the Holocaust was allowed by some governments). There is of course a double standard in all this. Wikipedians (mostly of Turkish descent) who question the Armenian Genocide and Assyrian Genocide, don't get blocked (and neither should they be blocked, either, because it shouldn't be a thoughtcrime to be of a different opinion on any historical event). This indicates that Wikipedia is fairly politicised as an Encyclopedia and in no way allows neutral editors on the Holocaust article. But I can't recall ever having edited the Holocaust article, and I'm not about to start any time soon, because it simply doesn't interest me enough. Looking back, at my so called "behavior", I think it was obvious that I needed a break from Wiki, and that I perhaps had gotten too emotional on the discussion pages. I've had my break, and it's been almost an entire year. Aside from that, in all my chutzpah, I think you owe me an apology for blocking me indefinitely. I also think it's your responsibility Will, to mentor me, if you can't find anyone else who wants to mentor me. You being the one who blocked me indefinitely, it's only fair the task should be up to you, because you seem to be the only one who is requesting this. What I won't do again is to raise any critical thought, opinion or dissidence against the Holocaust. This is apparently forbidden here on Wikipedia, and chances are you will get blocked indefinitely for it. I really ought to boycott Wikipedia on general principle for this, and many established Wikipedians who understand the importance of free speech in this day and age, very rightly so, protested against my block. Now, all that being said, I promise to behave this time around, because I'm interested in contributing with high quality edits on several population genetics entries here on Wikipedia (I've been reading lots of genetics related articles on PubMed Central as a good waste of time, and frankly it's annoying me that I can't improve some sections that are lacking in quality). EliasAlucard / Discussion 08:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have posted this question for community input. WP:ANI#Unblock EliasAlucard? It should be resolved within a couple of days. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not inclined to mentor him and in light of this response I am no longer sure that unblocking, even with mentoring, is a good idea. Is there a consensus for unblocking? If so, should there be a mentorship or other constraints? — Why do you want to keep me blocked? EliasAlucard / Discussion 09:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As your block log indicates, I blocked the account for "racist rants, incivility, POV pushing, edit warring, disruption". My concern is that there would be more of the same. Let's see what others think. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your concern is a snap judgement. I've told you, I want to get unblocked because some articles are in a poor condition and need improvement. I have no interest in wasting time on talk page discussions more than I have to. I wasn't causing any disruption either, User:Boodlesthecat was the sole driving force behind all that disruption (as his block log shows, since I've been gone; case in point). And racism? How can you be concerned "that there would be more of the same", when you haven't even given me a chance to actually edit? EliasAlucard / Discussion 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Your first act of mentoring should be showing him how to better fake sincerity.[2]User:Kuru. I can't believe this. "Fake sincerity". Fake and sincerity in the same sentence, as if such an oxymoron would somehow not be contradictful, and these guys are telling me I don't get it? EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Nine editors agreed unanimously that the block should not be lifted, and the thread is now marked as resolved. You may be interested in working on other project or wikis instead. Conservapedia, for example, may be a better match. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Then you take this to ArbCom, which is standard procedure. You don't take this to WP:ANI, because ANI isn't supposed to decide on such issues without thorough discussion. EliasAlucard / Discussion 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You can submit an appeal by sending it to any ArbCom member via email. (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia, for example, may be a better match - please, stop the sniping. It is quite ironic that this is being said against Elias, a user who has contributed a lot of verifiable information during his time on Wikipedia. Its also funny that you mention Conservapedia, considering how obsessive they are with blocking users who try to correct articles. Gabr-el 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Translated[edit]

Template:Translated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chaldoassyrians[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Chaldoassyrians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Helen Slater Supergirl.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Helen Slater Supergirl.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Sami (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Assyrian Democratic Organization[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Assyrian Democratic Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Sami (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unites States of America listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unites States of America. Since you had some involvement with the Unites States of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alicia Rhodes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alicia Rhodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rhodes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Accadian listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Accadian. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Shyheim for deletion[edit]

This is a courtesy message to notify you that the article Shyheim is being considered for deletion. All editors, including you, are welcome to discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyheim until a consensus is reached. The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern. Please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.

Users are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article— doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Legendary Dark Knight listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legendary Dark Knight. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Legendary Dark Knight Sparda listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Legendary Dark Knight Sparda. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Legendary Dark Knight Sparda listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legendary Dark Knight Sparda. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Legendary Dark Knight listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Legendary Dark Knight. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

PLAYSTATION®3 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PLAYSTATION®3. Since you had some involvement with the PLAYSTATION®3 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daniel Wayne Smith[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Daniel Wayne Smith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. Possibly could be included in Anna Nicole Smith

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Human Face Fish listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Human Face Fish. Since you had some involvement with the Human Face Fish redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Human Face Fish for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human Face Fish is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Face Fish until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Religion of Peace™ listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Religion of Peace™. Since you had some involvement with the Religion of Peace™ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)