User talk:The TriZ

Welcome to my talk page!

Stalking

Please quit WP:STALKing me. Thank you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your remark. I believe EliasAlucard has created lots of reasons to be blocked here as well. He has an endless record of incivility and POV editing, and continues to do so. And if you turn against his edits, he engages in a personal war against you and accuses you of all sorts of things he is actually guilty of himself. Typical of a hopeless nationalist, I'd say. Someone not too sure about his own identity. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And you Benne don't have a record of POV editing and revert wars. You are of course, not on a specific agenda here on Wikipedia. You are not attacking the ethnicity of an ethnic group and trying to erase our ethnic ancestry (which is Assyrian). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And you EliasAlucard always assume in all your articles that you are editing in these subjects that our people is ethnic assyrians. Though there are more likely theories saying we are not. And because of this, you are in no means a suitable editor of these articles and therefor you should keep your hands off these articles. You also has a past as a POV editor and you got an endless blockage from Swe Wiki because of this (you wouldnt get an endless blockage just becuase of insults). The TriZ (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board Chaldean (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Join Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. VegardNorman (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Soccer Players

Hey Triz, well I didn't know it was redirecting to Assyrian, but you can have it say Syriac and still have it redicrect to the Syriac Aramean page. That reason I'm against having it written Syriac-Aramean just looks like a WP:FORKing. There is no need for that, and it will invite vandels to change it to Assyrian, or something else. Syriac is enough. Chaldean (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Syriac-aramean people

Hi, can you please work on article Syriac-aramean people ? VegardNorman (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Triz, what happened to agreeing of creating the Syriac-Aramean people page, and not messing with the Assyrian people page? Chaldean (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brock? The guy converted to Syriac Orthodox Church. He has his own baisism as well. Where did I state all Syriacs are Assyrians? Where? I am more then aware that all of us are descendent from various different groups, be it Assyrians, Arameans, and so on. I reacted the way I reacted because this is starting to become a circus. Moving and redicrectin all these pags every other week is becoming really tireding. To move the Assyrian people page would be even a bigger blow to the project. I lended out my hand in help creating the Syriac-Aramean page, but it seems that you and Vegard did not have the time to complete the project and let dab take over. Chaldean (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

A nice hello to introduce yourself would be good, rather than butting in one of my discussions. I have nothing against you. Tourskin (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So, tell me about yourself, your age, where ur from, religion. Lol Im curious. I am a Chaldean Catholic Assyrian, born in Iraq, raised in england from 4yrs - 18yrs, American from 18yrs -->. What ethnicity do u consider urself? Tourskin (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So I have a personal question for you. Again, my intention is only to seek knowledge, in this case your opinion. 1) Do you believe that we are all the same people? 2) Do you think that we should unite and aim for an autonomous region somewhere in the Middle East?

I believe that we are all the same, at least to a very closely related extent. I greatly dislike the fighting going on between users on both sides. We get persecuted enough in the Middle East, we don't need to persecute each other. I even hold a fanatastic idea of perhaps establishing some sort of exile country were we can maintain our language and customs until we might one day return. Tourskin (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your thinking, it makes sense. No one will go back to the Middle East thats for sure, especially not the Younger generation. I came to this conclusion whilst fantasizing about an autonomous country or region. Today I heard at Mass that a Syrian Orthodox Priest was killed in Iraq. I mean its obvious that we're being ground to dust and that we should do something about it but what? Evacuation seems like the main way forward. But you see saving our people will undermine our presence in the region. So I suppose we owe to those who still live in the Middle East despite such persecution, to help them in any way possible. Tourskin (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Shlama

Why are you so angry at me? I have been a consistant supporter of creating the (now) West Syriacs page and I am continueing to support the idea of moving the page to Syriac-Aramean people title. So what do you have against me? Chaldean (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To both of you; keep out of my page if you're out of your minds. I don't want any war editting on my talk page, thank you. Assyrian and proud of it. (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm tiredsome. So long as I'm here, I won't let natonalist like you and Vegard turn Wikipedia into another aramnahrain.org website. Chaldean (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm a nationalist. But you see how many articles I have edited about the subject comparing to you? Your only purpose here is, just like EliasAlucard, to spread some false propaganda that all Syriacs are Assyrian. The TriZ (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have established myself as a good editor here in Wikipedia because I know the policy and rules of the encyclopedia. I suggest you do the same. If the facts say "all syriacs are Assyrian", you can't complain its POV. Yes sure, it might not be your POV, but that doesn't make it wrong. If you want to continue this discussion, please let us continue in the cooperation board talk page. Chaldean (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And if the facts say "user:Chaldean is a donkey", then you can't complain its POV. See the point? Stop writing meaningless things and call them facts without any reliable sources. Oh and by the way, speaking of your reputation as a "good" editor, i've seen you have alot of history of getting blocked. Hm, wonder whats that about... The TriZ (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You really don't know the bases of Wikipedia. All editors, even Admins have been blocked. Things happen when you work with something over 3 years. I have seen the likes of you - you all come and go. Chaldean (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we have already seen your best friend getting an endless blockage. Next time it will be for you. And don't bother answering this, cause i'm done talking to you. The TriZ (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

You can't remove fact tags just like that, you'll have to find a source instead. Also, please read WP:NPOV. Jobjörn (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a new version, so i can't change the article because of the fact tag? I'm trying to improve the article. Also please read WP:AGF The TriZ (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You changed "many countries" to "most parts of the world". Hardly a change that would merit a removal of the citation challenge, is it? The phrase "it's the voice of the Syriac people" is quite possibly the most POV wording I've seen so far this year - I'm not even sure it is possible to have it in the article with tons of citation. By the way, if I didn't AGF I would've slapped an NPOV warning template on your talk page instead. I'm glad we could work this out in this manner instead! Jobjörn (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I changed "most parts of the world" to "many countries". And many countries is two countries or more, and that is not something you need to challenge. And since the channel is the ONLY tv-channel for the Syriac people it is indeed the voice of the Syriac people. Read this, [1]. The TriZ (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And when your on it, read this to, [2], "Själv kommer hon från Qamishli i Syrien där många inom folkgruppen bor. – Många där tittar på tv-kanalen...", more than one country is two countrys. Two countrys are many countries. The TriZ (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Many" means "comparatively more", not "two or more". Also, please read WP:WEASEL. That it is the only TV channel for the Syriac people does not mean that it is the voice of the Syriac people. If it is, as stated in the Swedish article, broadcasted in 83 countries please say so and cite a source for this. I read the newspaper article, nowhere does it say anything about 83 countries. Qamishli+Södertälje does not equal "many countries". Jobjörn (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Many is pluralis, two is pluralis. And if you are sending in two countries so faraway from eachother with one sattelite, what does that say you? It's common sense. You don't have to be a genius to understand that. For example there is this [3], "Helgen under vecka träffades alla de Europeiska riksförbunden samr SUA för att enas om Suryoyo SAT och dess officiella öppnande.". The TriZ (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Aramean-Syriac people

Hi, it would be nice if you could contribute to article Aramean-Syriac people, so we can get the article to get perfect. THank you AramaeanSyriac (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Recen't insluts

Continue this path of insulting people and you will find yourself in a one way direction of a ban. Don't talk down to people, don't think your a better "editor" then others, and certianly don't think you can run things the way you want them. Chaldean (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i'm sorry. Are you speaking about yourself? Please, keep away from my talkpage. The TriZ (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hej svenskar

Du har ett meddelande på User talk:WestAssyrian#Hej svenskar. --LA2 (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "SvenskaFans"

A page you created, SvenskaFans, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a website, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for websites in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Marcus Birro has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he has a very famous blog in Swedish soocer fansite SvenskaFans.com, so I can't understand why it is unconstructive? The TriZ (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Aramean-Syriac people

Tjena, det vore snällt ifall du kunde hjälpa mig och bygga upp sektionen Traditions i artikeln. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jag vet inte alltså det är jätte lite text. jag undrar ifall du kunde bygga ut dom mer. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oj ja märkte det nu, bra att du sa det. aa ja såg det, jag skall försöka översätta. Jag håller på att göra artikeln Aramean-Syriac people lite mer profesionell så att den kan nomineras till Good article. Jag är dock inte så duktig på engelska och har inte ett brett ordförråd, det hade varit bra ifall du typ kunde ändra och skriva om vissa meningar och byta ut några ord i artikeln om du är duktig på engelska. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okej jag skall höra med honom om han har tid och intresse. Aa alltså artikeln börjar bli jävligt grym, den har blivit proppfylld med informatoin. Fortfarande så fattas några delar såsåm traditoins, cuisine, clothing etc i Culture delen. Men det lär ordna sig. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hattrick

Since its from Sweden, I was wondering if you play Hattrick? If so, whats your teams name. Chaldean (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your source [[4]] doesn't state he was an Aramean. Don't try to smire sources and claim you have provided a source. This kind of act can get you banned, be careful. I have submitted the notion to User Garzo. Chaldean (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in your source does it talk about Michael the Syrian? I don't think you understand what sourcing means. Also, I too used to have a Hattrick team but gave it away. Now I am back. We have Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Cup and everything. Also, I have finally convinced the HT-GMs to add Assyrian/Syriac players in the game. So now, we have Iraqi and Syrian players with Assyrian/Syriac names. Chaldean (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea exactly, they take into consideration other minorites in other countries, but they never did with our people. With HT, a minority has to be at least 1% of the entire group in order to have a list in HT, so they agreed to make Iraq 5% and Syria 3%. Chaldean (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I know about AssyrianSyriacs in Syrian team, Sanharib Malki scored a goal the other day. Watch the goal on youtube [[5]], he scored the 3rd goal. Chaldean (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, also Syriac player Louay Chanko from sweden plays in Syria national team. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Elias Merkes. [[6]] - somebody should create his article. Chaldean (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Syrianska

tjena, vad sägs om att utöka artiklarna relaterade till syrianska fotbollslagen? En artikel om syriansk kultur, traditioner, klädessätt etc måste också fixas AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mm, det borde nog gå att fixa lite mer med dem. Kan försöka lägga till spelare och infoboxar lite senare till att börja med... The TriZ (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concentrate

Let us concentrate our debating on one page alone. For now, I will leave you to cite the Aramaens as however many billion you want to cite them. I suggest we concentrate all of our debating on the Talk:Assyrian people page. Gabr-el 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert

According tow hat discussion? I have explained myself in your sock puppet's user page. Its funny how you and AramaicSyriac are always editting at the same time Gabr-el 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it? Maybe cause we're living in the same country (-> same time zone, if you didn't get it). And yes, check the discussionpage. The TriZ (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE MOTHERFUCKER, I WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE A LIVING HELL

IF YOU CONTINUE TO SPREAD YOUR FALSE PROPAGANDA I WILL COME AFTER YOU AND I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOUR WHOLE FAMILY. THIS IS A FINAL WARNING. WATCH YOUR BACK MOTHERFUCKER!!! HITMAN119 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be looking forward to meeting you. The TriZ (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

don't listen to him man, people like that aren't to be taken seriously. I just hope you know that I am totally against that guy. If its pertaining to the Assyrian/Syriac debate (i hope not) then that is the side of nationalism which I am against. I have told you before that I do not support nationalists like that even if they are Assyrians. Malik Danno (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not taking him serious, just empty threats... but thanks anyway. The TriZ (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User_talk:Malik_Danno. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just You and Me

TriZ, we clearly don't see eye to eye in many issues. I am willing to discuss with you one on one the issues that we disagree with and hopefully we will come to a resolution. If you are willing then that's great. If you agree then we must promise to: be civil, be willing to hear the other side, listen to the requests of each other, no name-calling/threats etc.

To begin the Questions I will ask you these simple ones to begin with:

1) Where the Aramaean-Syriacs of today (you) called Syrians?

2) do you also agree that they were called West Syrians?

3) do you agree that members of the Church of the East were called East Syrians?

thanx Malik Danno (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't lie and say that I'm a Ph.D. in this subject or anything like that, but I can answer those questions on a personal level of what I think.

1. Yes the today Aramean-Syriacs are still sometimes called Syrians, and they've been called Syrians.

2. Again, yes they have been called West Syrians and sometimes still do.

3. Same answer again.

The TriZ (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ok so the consensus has been reached that you were/are called West Syrians and we were/are called East Syrians (Whenever there isn't a consensus like this then we would go to sources to deal with it and let's make it that ONLY journals/articles(not news)/books are good enough.

Do you also think that the East and West Syrians have some sort of relation with each other? I mean that are they somehow put into the same category or was is a coincidence that one was called East Syrian and other West Syrian? Malik Danno (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If course there is a relation between West Syrians and East Syrians, but wheter they originally are the same people or not, I can't answer on that. The TriZ (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, I haven't asked if they are the same people or not just yet.

and would you agree with me if I were to say that there must have been a border or something that divided distinguished the East Syrians with West Syrians ... In this case would you agree that the Euphrates River is the 'border' which divided the East Syrians from the West Syrians? Malik Danno (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guessed that you were trying to get to that, what do you think about that?

I'm not sure about a border. One thing I want you to understand, that for example, I attended on a lecture by a Swedish guy, Bertil Bengtsson, who has studied the Syriacs for some time and has written a book about the genocide. And he (this is not only him) talked about the Syriacs/Assyrians (in Sweden the normal thing is that you use the doubleterm, Syrianer(Syriacs)/Assyrier(Assyrians)) and "Asori" as two different people (the lecture was about the genocide (which he refered to as "Seyfo")). In this case the Assyrians (Assyrier) mostly consist of the group inside of the West Syrians. The real conflict in the diaspora and Europe, is betweeb the Assyrians/Syriacs in the West Syrian group. The East Syrian is for many a totally different thing. I know this wasn't what you asked for, but I thought I had to clear this out. Oh, and if something that I write isn't understandable, let me know so I can rephrase it (English isn't my primary neither secondary language). The TriZ (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the issue going on in Sweden there in the Assyrian/Syriac identity. are you trying to tell me that the problem is within the West Syrian community there?

I guessed that you were trying to get to that, what do you think about that? I have done some readings and I have found out that the Euphrates River was infact the border between Easy/West Syrians ... do you want me to provide a source for that or are you content (and agree) and willing to move on? Malik Danno (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

For now I've no reason to doubt you on that, though again, I wanted to ask you, do you believe that West Syrians and East Syrians are the same people?

The impression I get is that the problem is only within the West Syrians, yes. I'm not really sure about the role of the East Syrians in Sweden and the rest of Europe. Another thing that shows that the problem is inside the West Syrian group is that those who call themselves Assyrians, are very often hostile against the Syriac Church. The TriZ (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal idea is that yes West Syrians and East Syrians are infact the same people and I know that's were we disagree. But the point of me asking you all these questions is for us to know where we start not to agree from each other. I didn't ask you if we are the same people because I already know what the answer would be. That's why I am starting at the very bottom and working my way up so we know the exact point where we have different thought.

This is what we have agreed upon so far: 1) Syriacs were/are called West Syrians, Assyrians were/are called East Syrians. 2) They are somehow related to each other but we have not clarified how they are exactly. 3) Euphrates was the border which 'divided' the East Syrians and West Syrians. If there are any of the points that you don't agree with then tell me.

Also do you agree with the statement and it was the Greeks who 'imposed' the term Syrian on the East Syrians and West Syrians? Malik Danno (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what I wrote in the Assyrian peoples talkpage, but I'm not sure if that West & East Syrians aren't the same people, I mean, I think it depends on how long back you go. About your last question, I don't know if I can agree on that, but I do agree that the Greeks did call the East & West Syrians for Syrians, but again, if they was the ones who "imposed" the term, I can't answer on that. The TriZ (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. Then do you agree with me saying that the border was Euphrates River because the Persians (Parthians) ruled to the east of the Euphrates and Romans ruled West of Euphrates river?

"Three decades later Emperor Augustus and King Phraates IV ended a war neither could win and, in 20 BCE, recognized the Euphrates as the border, thus beginning the Pax Romana. The river became the place where East and West met..." (Baumner 9) - Malik Danno (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I can't agree on that, cause I know to little about it. But I have no reason to doubt it either. The TriZ (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this discussion very much. Nice job of handling each other guys. Wish we had this converstaion face-to-face here in Iraq :) Iraqi (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Iraqi I must say that if we all go back home just to visit we would all realize how stupid our discussion/debate really is. My friend told me of his friend who was a stanch Aramaean-Syriac!! while he was an Assyrian-Syriac. They constantly debated until they reached a point that they realized they weren't achieving anything. It came a time when the Aramaean-Syriac gentleman went to Iraq (i think last year) during Kha B'Nissan and he saw how they lived their and even through all the hardship 50 000 came out in Nohadra (Dohuk). After that he dropped his Aramaean-Syriac mentality and said that this name issue is just foolish ... us in diaspora are fighting over the name while they in iraq are fighting to live. He then joined Assyrian Democratic Movement and is now involved in Assyrian Politics. That's why I say this name thing is just stupid, back home they don't care about this foolish name issue ... instead of fighting over what to call ourselves here in the good life (diaspora) why don't we concentrate our time and effort on helping the Assyrians back home and help them stay in their homeland. Malik Danno (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

back home they don't care about this foolish name issue - exactly. I've been here in Iraq for about 6 weeks now and I swear I haven't heard not one talk about any kind of a name issue. They all consider themselves as one people, at least when it comes to their religion. I've bet Syriac Catholics Syriac Orthodox, Chaldeans of course, and ACOE as well and all of them thier way more open minded then our people in the deaspora. Iraqi (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire sad mess is the product of the testosterone of a few angry young men in Germany and Sweden. I have long ceased to assume that it is an issue in the real-world. --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Syriac text

Would you look at Image:-universalsyriacscout.png and see if you can make out what it says? It probably says something like "Be Prepared", or "Always Prepared", and I have need of the text. Thank you! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given you an answer at User_talk:Assyria_90#Syriac_text. The TriZ (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

stop it

stop creating content forks, and stop revert-warring when they are found and eliminated. If you are unhappy with the title or content of an existing article, help fixing it. Creating counter-articles instead is illegal, and not helpful. --dab (𒁳) 17:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You stop with what your doing! I'm not creating content forks, check the numbers and all, it's not the same. Syriacs are one group, Assyrians are another. The TriZ (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but which part of the perfectly simple policy "please cite your sources" do you find difficult to understand? It isn't optional. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but where have I not cite my sources and where am I've supposed to do it? Check the Aramean-Syriac talkpage, I've done it, you have not! The TriZ (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

no, you have assumed that "Syriac" does refer to your hypothetical "Aramaean-Syriac" group. You have not cited any evidence supporting as much. "Syriac" refers to the group discussed under Assyrian people. We haven't found any sources discussing a separate "Aramaean-Syriac" subgroup. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

here is a good edit of yours. It is true that the Syriacs have three true subgroups, denominationally, viz. Chaldean, East Syrian and West Syrian. But it is not the case that adherents of the West Syrian Rite all identify as "Aramaeans" and adherents of the East Syrian Rite all identify as "Assyrian". It would be simple if that was the case. The fact of the matter is that these all self-identify as Suryoye, plus there are a few confused ethnic nationalists in diaspora who get all heated up over ancient Assyrians vs. ancient Aramaeans -- this dispute does not reflect any sort of division of the group itself. Or if it does, the burden is on you to cite academic literature establishing as much. Please, I know you're from Sweden, I know this is where the dispute lives, and tht you must really care about this, but this is not what Wikipedia does. If you want to discuss internal disputes within the Swedish Syriac diaspora, do it at the article about the Swedish Syriac diaspora, at Assyrians and Syriacs in Sweden, but don't spread it to others. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

of course, even when discussing Sweden, you will need to cite a source establishing that "Syriacs" and "Assyrians" are considered two separate ethnic groups within the Swedish demographics. From sv:Sveriges demografi I take it the Swedish census counts "assyrier/syrianer" as a single group, just like the US census. --dab (𒁳) 13:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

of course, even when discussing Sweden, you will need to cite a source establishing that "Syriacs" and "Assyrians" are considered two separate ethnic groups within the Swedish demographics. From sv:Sveriges demografi I take it the Swedish census counts "assyrier/syrianer" as a single group, just like the US census. I also note this:

Assyrier/syrianer är officiell benämning i Sverige på en nutida kristen folkgrupp från Mellanöstern.

this means the equivalent of Assyrians/Syriacs is the official Swedish designation for the group under discussion here. I am doing your job for you here: if you can show there is a separate group of "Syrianer i Sverige", you may add the fact to Assyrians and Syriacs in Sweden, with proper references. Even that still won't mean it will affect WP:NAME and how English Wikipedia names its articles, at all. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say here? Don't you think I know what Swedish governement calls the people? The TriZ (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Aramean-Syriacs isn't a good name for the article, and I wasn't the one who created it. Syriac is indeed refering to those who identify as Arameans, and I've showed this many times with different sources. It is true though that not all in the West Syrian Rite identifies as Arameans and likewise wiht Assyrian in the East Syrian Rite. No, they all do not self-identify as "Suryoye". Read this discussion Talk:Syriac_people. Suryoye is what the Syriacs (Arameans) calls themselves, Suroye on the other hand is what the whole group self-identify as, because, maybe not etymological but Suroye means christians. In the middle-east, the number one thing they have in common is there religion. The TriZ (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

no you have not. Try OED, which defines "Syriac" as "the form of Aramaic used by Syrian Christians". The article on "those who identify as Arameans" is at Aramaeanism (presently a section redirect), simply because this "identification" doesn't make for an "ethnic group", it just makes for an -ism. Or would you say we need to split Egyptian people to account for the group of those endorsing Pharaonism? You are free to make your finer points on Suroye vs. Suryoye at Names of Syriac Christians since this sure as hell isn't English terminology applicable to article naming. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your constantly are contradicting yourself, you just recently said Syrian Chrsitians is only applied for the Christians in Syria. Try a google book search and you'll see how many of the hits you get is about Chrsitians in Syria. Have you read ethnicity? Please don't compare this with something you have no idea of, and your biasm just shows through insiunating that Aramean-Syriacs are like Pharaonism and that Assyrians equals Egyptians in your comparison. The TriZ (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who brought up "Suryoye" without even knowing the meaning of it? I'm doing you a favour here, not the opposite. I'm trying to teach you about this conflict that you have been aggravating since a long time back. The TriZ (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Aramaic. I was under the impression we had established at Names of Syriac Christians that Sūryāyē was accepted by both factions. If that's wrong, too bad, we should fix it, but it won't affect the question of article titles. In my opinion, the article should just be given the title Assyrians/Syriacs. It should be in your interest that we move the article at present called Assyrian people to Assyrians/Syriacs. If you had an ounce of interest in resolving this constructively, you would support me in this and we could go ahead with the move. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

At first you should know that the article in Swedish Wikipedia, where I've been active before and still am in a lesser extent, is called sv:Assyrier/syrianer. I can also tell that the article isn't very developed but there aren't any editwars no more. I would support you, but it is obvious you will let the article lean against the Assyrian direction. And in form of an admin you have much more knowledge than me in wiki policies and also the English language, which isn't my strongest side. The TriZ (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

what you need to understand is that Assyrian people used to be trolled by Assyrianist editor such as Šarukinu (talk · contribs) and EliasAlucard (talk · contribs). Now these were "leaning in the Assyrian direction", and I did my best to oppose them. Of course, they accused me of holding an Aramaeanist pov just as much as you suggest I hold an Assyrianist pov. The truth is that I am completely neutral. If you take the time to read some of my debates with EliasAlucard, you will likely find that I was staunchly defending your side of the dispute. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had my share of battles with Elias to, much in Swedish Wikipedia where he also got a indefinite block, but even Saurkinu had some problems with him. So I know about EliasAlucard and his extreme nationalism, but hes been gone for almost a year now. The TriZ (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but I am saying, I invested a lot of effort in opposing him. Which I would hardly have done if your accusation of my bias was justified. --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop with your syriac propaganda in the assyrian pages! --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Syriac flag

Triz, can you find out whether this flag was designed in Sweden, and in which year it first appeared? Since the Syriacs came to Sweden in greater numbers in the late 1970s, I would imagine the flag turned up at some point during the 1980s? --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just gave you an answer on this, I'll try to find some sources on this but please, the flag is much older than you think. I mean early 90s... The TriZ (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's possible it dates to the 1970s, or even late 1960s. I just couldn't find any evidence. I know I have seen it in real life in the 1990s, but not before that. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I will check it out, but I don't believe that it was created in Sweden. Just to be clear, you do know the flag is used in more countries than just Sweden and Germany (and the rest of Europe)? The TriZ (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess Elias has convinced me that the "Aramaean" idea originated in Germany or Sweden. But of course the emblem is now found elsewhere, as Elias pointed out emphatically in this image (which he showed around to prove "Assyrian" came first. What the image does show, of course, is that "Assyrian" used to be the term used in English in the 1900 to 1945 period, and it is only post-1945 that any of this has become a problem. The 1920s flag (the one that looks like the Swiss one, ) certainly predates this dispute. It also still focusses on Christian heritage instead of the current Bronze Age antiquity frenzy.

I am guessing the dispute was brewing in the 1960s to 1970s, and came into full swing in the 1970s to 1980s, and has begun to be reflected in politically correct government publications in the 1990s to 2000s. I don't know what the Syriacs were called in the 1980 Swedish or US census, but it would be interesting to find out. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

btw, I am glad reasonable debate is after all possible with you. Unlike AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) who seems to be another Elias in terms of maturity, just from the other side of the fence. I hope that you recognize, even though you have your biases, that the fools in your own camp hurt your cause more than your opponents. --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

About that image, it was of interest in SvWiki to and by using help of Israelan users and Arabic-speaking users the conclusion made was that in Arabic it says "monastery of the Syriacs". But that the Jerusalem office had translated it to "Assyrian", which if course wasn't appreicated by the people attending the monastery. So the monastery really had never changed name, it has always in Arabic been called "deir es-siryan".

The flag is used in all countries where Syriac people are living. It can easily be proven. But I think it's only in Germany and its neighbours (Holland, Belgium, France etc) where they use the Aramean name. In Sweden as I said we say "Syrianer" which translates to Syriacs. And in the Middle East Syriacs is used aswell, even though if course they're using the Syriac flag and believing in a Aramean identity.[7] Midyat(Turabdin), Turkey, [8] Lebanon, [9] Turabdin, [10] Lebanon, [11] Istanbul, Turkey.

The Syriacs was at first called Assyrians in Sweden (a reason I've heard is that a guy (Assyrian) told everyone to say that they were Assyrians when they applied for citizenship), but when they realized what it meant they wanted to change it, and so the government started to call the people "assyrier/syrianer". The TriZ (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ArameanSyriac has been active in some editwars but he has been doing some other good work to, if we can agree on how we will do with all of this, I have no reason to doubt that he will co-operate. And yes, you know I'm not hiding in wich identity my sympathy lies in, just look at the top of my talkpage. But whats seperates me from Elias is that I don't call everyone Arameans and deny the other groups existence. The TriZ (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

but you consistently fail to show there are two groups. Which was Ephraim? Aramaean or Assyrian? It's one and the same ethnic group, you just can't agree what you want to call yourselves. That's fine, we can deal with it. We can just call the article Assyrians/Syriacs and present both opinions. dab (𒁳) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I'm not saying there are two "peoples", I'm saying that the people is divided in subgroups. That will say Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans. Ephrem was with no doubt Syriac (Aramean). The TriZ (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

then you will need to agree that the article discussing the Syriac (Aramaean) people is the one at Assyrian people, since the portrait of Ephrem has been figuring there as illustrating the group for ages, and nobody ever thought of objecting to that, not even Assyrianist purists like Elias. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was Elias who added Mor Ephrem. But if course, for Elias everyone is Assyrian. The TriZ (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing now is redirecting every article to the "Assyrian people" article, I know and understand what your trying to do, but as long as the Assyrian people only brings up the Assyrian identity and the article has the name "Assyrian people", all you do know is creating edit wars, if you want to create a Assyrian/Syriac article without choosing side by only presenting one side, you need to do the article first and then redirecting everything to that article. The TriZ (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any good sources about the flag yet, but I will try look for it as soon as possible. Meanwhile, what is your plans? Moving Assyrian people to Syriac people and merging Aramean-Syriac people in it? The TriZ (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

After watching this thing for more than a year, I think I understand its dynamics. It is an unfortunate issue of standard terminology colliding with ideologies of national identity. On my talkpage, I give an overview of what I have gathered on the history of terminology in English. Consider the case of stating that the English translation of French Allemands is Germans. Obviously, the etymological translation of Allemands is Alemanni, but it would be objectively wrong to translate French Allemands as anything other than "Germans". Similarly, the Greek translation of English Greeks isn't Graikoi, it's Hellenes. The Greeks have to accept that they are known as Greeks in English even if they don't like the term, or don't "identify" as Graikoi. "Translation" means finding the word that is used in the same sense in another language, it doesn't mean finding a word with the same etymology. Thus, the English translation of German Aramäer in a modern context is Assyrians/Syriacs (while of course in a Bronze Age context it is Aramaeans).

These linguistic points are quite obviously too much to grasp for hot-headed angry young men on a quest to defend their national identity. For this reason, in order to avoid futile and endless conflicts while still keeping true to WP policy, I have come to the opinion that we should use the "slashed" name whenever possible, viz., Assyrian/Syriac people. This is easily defensible, since a number of statistics offices in the Anglosphere facing the same problem have recently come to the same conclusion. If you can support me in moving all "Assyrian/Syriac" articles to such titles (Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden, Assyrians/Syriacs in the Netherlands, History of the Assyrian/Syriac people etc.) it would be a huge step forward, since we will have made clear that the articles in question cover the whole group no matter what your perspective, and disputes will need to be resolved within the article rather than diluted by creating content forks and counter-articles. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but what would Assyrer in German be translated to in English? If Aramäer is translated to Assyrians/Syriacs.

I'll support you with the move of the articles to the double term, but only if your intentions is to keep the articles balanced and not pro-Assyrian, like e.g. the Assyrian people articles current condition. The TriZ (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Extinct People Are Dying Out

The Kurds are the indigenous peoples of Aram Nahrain and not the extinct Aramaens you speak of. I have noticed you claim Aramaen ethnictiy either way I just want to let you know your extinct people will never get autonomy or freedom as long as the Kurds live. We kurds are the ethno linguistic cradle of civilization and our land is Aram Nahrain. Your kind is dying out while my people are getting stronger and stronger. Your kind is weak and stupid while my kind is strong and wise. There are no aramaens in this world nor has there ever been since 3 thousand years ago. You are such an idoiot if you think just because you make an article about aramean you will get attention. Well I hate to break to you but the Kurdish people will never let you get your land back because it was never your land to begin with. We are multiplying exponentially every day and we will continue to drive out your extint people from turkey. We will turn your monasterys into mosques and your schools into mandrassas. We will wipe any memory of your extint people from history books. The Kurdish Emopire Will live again and I assure your extinct people will be driven out of Kurdistan. Long Live Kurdish Pride Kurdish Empire (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the Kurdish nation is proud of you. But hey, your not really Kurdish, are you? No, you are as much Kurd as Levi Seigel (talk · contribs) is a Jew. The TriZ (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Yusuf Akbulut

The page is currently protected from editing to encourage discussion on the talk page. Please don't endlessly war on an article. If an editor is vandalizing or otherwise editing against consensus, revert and warn. If the issue gets out of hand or the inappropriate edits continue, request administrative attention. Warnings are being issued to everyone involved, and it's expected that once protection lifts, there will be no more warring. If there is, blocks will be issued. Same goes for edits against consensus. If there are issues with the article after protection lifts, let me or another administrator know. لennavecia 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the users involved and I've also asked for help on this [12], the same users involved in the Y.A. article is also involved in many other edit wars. The TriZ (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try my best to help. لennavecia 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. The TriZ (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bsheyno bashlomo

Shlomo lokh hawro umthonoyo. Bashroro olsoyo/mohimyo dad qudrina saymina awyutho beth/bayn an eshmone do camaydan. Zodeq/lazem mjarbina d'saymina an khasrat kulle b'ishmo d'Assyrians/Syriacs w lo torina ha eshmo li khasra. Lozemste mshawshetina(utveckla) an kharsat d'kitlan, dilonoith i khasra d'Assyrians/Syriacs, aw i khasra d g'tewyo Assyrians/Syriacs.

Med vänliga hälsningar --Yohanun (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Förresten, jag har även försökt kontakta ett par administratörer och frågat om de kan flytta artikeln till Assyrians/Syriacs och få slut på denna namnkonflikten en gång för alla på wikipedia samt låsa den för flyttning. Jag föreslår att du gör detsamma.--Yohanun (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Du har helt rätt i det du säger, den nuvarande situationen är ohållbar. Jag har haft många diskussioner med Dab och hans tanke är att flytta artikeln till Assyrians/Syriacs (eller Assyrian/Syriac people), men jag väntar fortfarande på att han ska ta tag i det hela och verkligen flytta artikeln, för det skulle ju verkligen lösa många problem. Sen när vi ska utveckla artikeln, så måste vi sätta fokus på modern tid och hur det ser ut idag och om kultur och liknande, och inte haka upp oss på gammal historia, även om förstås det kan nämnas kort om det och om namndispyten. The TriZ (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

article titles

I would invite you to comment here. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Translation Help, please

Greetings TriZ,

Nice to meet you.

Could you kindly help me translate these passages into the Turoyo language? Please.

Content

"Mottagande av den Helige Ande, bekräftad av tungotal, är garantin för vår arvsrätt till Guds rike".

"Dopet med vatten är sakramentet för syndernas förlåtelse och återuppståndelsen. Dopet skall ske i naturligt, levande vatten som en flod, en sjö eller en källa. Den döpande skall redan ha mottagit dopet i vatten och den Helige Ande i Jesu Kristi namn, och den som döps skall nedsänkas helt i vattnet med huvudet böjt och ansiktet vänt nedåt."

"Kvällen innan Jesus tillfångatogs tvättade han sina lärjungars fötter. Detta bruk har bland annat i the church tagits upp som ett sakrament. Det skall utgöra en konstant påminnelse om att leva i ständig kärlek, helighet, ödmjukhet, tillgivelse och tjänande. Var och en, som har mottagit dopet i vatten skall ha sina fötter tvättade i Jesu Kristi namn. Ömsesidig fottvagning praktiseras alltid när det verkar passande."

A rough translation would be sufficient enough. Thankyou very much.

(In return, I can help you translate your favourite article into the Chinese language). --Jose77 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi TriZ,

Those passages are part of the main beliefs of my church. (Those passages are based on Bible verses, however they are not identical word-for-word)

Could you first help help me translate this article about my church into the unique and wonderful Turoyo language? Please.

The "True Jesus Church" is an independent church that was established in Beijing, China in 1917. Today, there are approximately 2.5 million members in forty eight countries and six continents. The church belongs to the Pentecostal branch of Christianity that emerged during the early twentieth century. Since 1967, the International Assembly of the church was established in Los Angeles, United States. They aim to preach the gospel to all nations before the Second Coming of Jesus. The ten main doctrines and beliefs of the church are:

1. Holy Spirit
2. Baptism
3. Feet Washing
4. Holy Communion
5. Sabbath Day
6. Jesus Christ
7. The Bible
8. Salvation
9. The church
10. Final Judgement

You can give me the translation in latin letters or the Syriac script (whichever one you prefer), Thankyou very much. --Jose77 (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you email me or give me your email?

By the way, I want to put aside our nationalistic tensions. Gabr-el 05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello?Gabr-el 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Syriac Orthodox Church

Interesting question. I once remember seeing two pictures on a (Church?) building that had the words "Assyrian" on one of them, then below was a less aged picture with the words Syriac, with some of it written poorly, as if on an earlier word. I have not been able to find this image ever since, however.

I cannot say for certain if this is what happened, since my knowledge of this area is limited. I do know that both the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church are both guilty of destroying the unity of Syriac Christianity. Respectfully, Gabr-el 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You weren't imagining things Gabr-el, that is a real picture that I have also seen. It is a monestary in Jerusalem (explaining the Hebrew) and the pre-1950s page called the building "Assyrian Orthodox Church" and the post-1950 the "As" on "Assyrians" was pained over to leave "Syrian Orthodox Church". It was actually here on wikipedia until it 'mysteriously' was deleted. I think that It should be put in the page currently being created dealing with Arameanization. The picture (with many more) can be seen on Assyrianvoice (i know just a blog, but thats the best I can do) [13]Malik Danno (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Triz has defended this as saying there some translation error. I don't know what to make of any of it.Gabr-el 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el you have to realize that certain people have a mindset which they assume is the correct mindset and will NEVER change to another. The TriZ, unfortunately, is one of them as it seems as if he would never in his life accept any other fact then "Syriacs are Arameans not Assyrians". I want him to read that report with all the evidence and i want to hear yet another one of his excuses. I actually believe if the Blessed Mar Ephrem himself came to his dream and told him Syriacs are Assyrians he still would deny it. When people have been told something for so long they begin to believe it ... unfortunately this is one of those cases. Malik Danno (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look who shows up. Let me just say that it's not me "defending" it by saying that, that's how it is as explained by the Israelan wiki user who took the picture I showed in Gabr-el's talkpage. The Arabic word weren't again translated by me, it was by some Arabic user and the discussion and conclusions was drawn by those discussing the picture (including several neutral admins). The pictures has already been discussed in Swedish Wikipedia and this is just a proof of how people with an agenda are trying to manipulate weak people like you Malik. And obviously they have suceeded. The TriZ (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My Allegiance

As you may have guessed, my concern is first our Christian heritage. Thats why at the very beginning of our discussion, I stated that I did not care what name we used to call ourselves, so long as we could find one name and admit that we are one people. My allegiance lies with the Chaldean Catholic Church. Gabr-el 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, looking at it makes me laugh. Before I use to think it was vandalism in an attempt to get rid of Assyrian and have only Syrian, but now that you mention that it made me laugh a little that a correction in translation is being mistaken for nationalistic vandalism.

Anyways, how about this compromise: I would go for Syriac, except that many Assyrian won't, and I don't want to imply that Assyrians do not exist. Neither do I want to deny that some Syriac Christians call themselves Aramaen-Syriacs. Whether or not we are related to Aramaens or Assyrians will be that respective nations' responsibility to find evidence to prove our cultural and historical heritage to the world. I am prepared to let the article be called "Suraye". Suraye and Syriac are almost the same, except that all groups can relate to it. What do you think? I too do not want to spend so much energy on this. Gabr-el 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote to move page back to Assyrian people

Shlomo ahono,

Have you decided to change your vote? If so, could you please indicate it by moving your bullet + comment in the vote section?

Tawdi.

--Šarukinu (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bshejno ahono, my vote stays unchanged. The TriZ (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem "Assyrian" Convent picture.

You seem to have proved this picture as incorrect, however you and all who discussed it were in-fact wrong. You seem to pick the arabic section to prove your point, and say that the English was incorrect but was later fixed. This is wrong because in Hebrew, it says Ashueye which translates to Assyrian in english, now due to its position is Israel, one would assume that Hebrew would be more reliable than Arabic. Anyways, now you have 3 of the languages on the picture saying Assyrian and 1 arabic saying Syrian ... given that wouldn't it make more sense that the Arabic was in fact wrong! but once again, you ignore the entire article and pick only one tiny section (2 lines) of the article. Malik Danno (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I already told you what the conlusions was regarding this. That is how it is. Your entire article is nonsense, did you hear that? Nonsense. Bullshit. Call it whatever you want to. The Arabic was there before the Hebrew. Go read a book. The TriZ (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep undoing?

Hello The TruZ, I'm just wondering why you keep undoing my edits to some pages, changing them from just "Syriac" to "Assyrian/Syriac". You yourself have advocated numerous times that "Assyrian/Syriac" is more appropriate and you yourself have made many edits changing pages from "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac". I just have one question, why are you acting like a hypocrite and undoing my posts while you are keeping yours which are the same thing? If this continues, then you have clearly violated the neutrality that has been proposed and accepted by many members.

P.S. Assyrians also claim Agbar VIII, and Eddessa. Malik Danno (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously getting tired of you, try do something constructive for a change. Here is how it is, Edessa, Osroene and its kings are not Assyrian, and there is no valid source claiming so either. The Assyrian/Syriac term is to describe the today people, do you understand this? You don't see me claiming that Ashurbanipal or Shalmaneser I or Assur were Syriac, do you? Now stop vandalizing my talkpage... The TriZ (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[14] is a reliable source which not only states that Edessa was an Assyrian city, but that the king was also Assyrian! Also last time I checked there was no sources stating that the city and the king were Syriac (as seen on the wiki-pages). There is no reason for you acting like a hypocrite changing Assyrian to Assyrian/Syriac, but not allowing us to change Syriac to Assyrian/Syriac. Assyrians claim Eddessa and King Agbar and the source above states that, it is source number one of the page so check it out yourself! Malik Danno (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you to stay out from my page? If you want me to answer you, then speak civil. For start, don't call me a hypocrite or other unfounded accusations. We are only looking for mainstream opinions and Osroene and it kings were not Assyrian, that is the mainstream opinions, if you don't trust me, feel free to ask the active editors of the article, for example your friend Chaldean (talk · contribs) or the more reliable and the one with the expertise, Garzo (talk · contribs). The TriZ (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You still have not provided reliable source for what you are saying, and asking other members of wikipedia is definitely not reliable. You saying it is not 'mainstream opinion' does not make it so. I will change it to "Assyrian" until you provide me with source that says he/it was Syriac (not language or religion ... but 'people'). to tell u the truth,you should've kept it the neutral "Assyrian/Syriac". Malik Danno (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I've already told you to stay away from my talkpage, every article has a talkpage where you can discuss the actual issue. Now obviously the issue here is you, so I agree with thay you should leave the project. The TriZ (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jacob Dinc

I have nominated Jacob Dinc, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Dinc. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Am6212

Please see my comment at the above. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arameans

Shlomo Triz,

As you might've noticed, I grew tired of the way Wikipedia deals with the Syriac/Aramean people. In name of a so-called consensus, everything Syriac is named Assyrian/Syriac, whereas the name Aramean is denied its rightful place in the article dealing with the Syriac people as a whole.

I realize that the naming dispute is a very delicate question, but somehow justice should be done to the fact that the acknowledgement that the Syriacs are the same people as the ancient Arameans can be found throughout the history of the Syriac people, and that the widespread labelling of Syriacs as "Assyrians" is a quite recent invention (even though many who recognize the Aramean ancestry think it is likely that the name Syrian was derived from Assyrian, Th. Nöldeke, for example).

How about forming a group of editors who support that idea, and thinking of a way to solve the problem by putting forward the Syriac/Aramean side of the discussion in a thorough, well-sourced way. It really doesn't work if all of us try to edit the articles ourselves, and when it comes to consensus, the Assyrianists always seem to come up with more editors, as if presenting reliable sources is not what this discussion is all about. I feel hesitant about linking to the Aram Nahrain website, even though some great sources are cited there. Perhaps we can find the original sources and put them here.

If that doesn't work, I believe I should refrain from even coming here anymore, because it's apparently not reason but the power of numbers that rules here, especially in this question.

Please, let me know what you think. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bsheyno Benne, I'm with you on this on. I agree that we should co-operate in a better way than now. I've been trying to clean up after this Chcoc (talk · contribs) guy, but administrators seems to ignore my requests of banning this user, since 1) He keeps edit-warring and makes no constructive edits, and 2) is an obvious puppet of Am6212 (talk · contribs). I noticed this user, Ibrahim4048 (talk · contribs), he seems to be someone whom we should involve.

I think many needs to thank you for your efforts and for your struggle against users such as EliasAlucard, and it would be a shame if you left. Though I think if we want to move forward now, we need to do as you say, find the original sources and other academic sources and I'm sure if then, we will have other users backing us up. The TriZ (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Perhaps it is best to use one of our user pages, and start a subpage there, dedicated to the Syriac Aramean people, because I'm afraid any other forum would meet with admin ukases right away. For instance, User:Benne/Syriac Arameans. Let's get some people and info together here for now, but if you know a better place, feel free to move it.

I don't know if you know German, but the situation at the German Wikipedia is much better than here. At least, the fact that there are people who call themselves Arameans is recognized. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great idea Benne, I will try to help fill it with academic sources. Unfortunately though, I'm having big difficulties right now with Chcoc (talk · contribs), and the time I spend here goes to clean up his mess.

No, I can't say I speak German, but that is great to hear. Let's hope we can in the same way help making English Wikipedia to a place where it reflects reality in a better way. The TriZ (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Suryoyo Sat. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=I'm furious here. Why? I've reported this user several times. The first time I reported this users other socks, since this user is obviously the same person as Am6212 (talk · contribs), but that was rejected to you on really stupid bases. You base it on some whois reports which do say the ip numbers is close. But that doesn't seem to be enough for you, because I mean the whois reports aren't exact for Gods sake! And the user had alread been blocked for those socks! Furthermore, I reported this user, Chcoc (talk · contribs), on ANI, as you can see [15]. No one even bothered to answer. I made a discussion entry aswell. No notice to that either. I did 4 reverts in 23 hours, I was not aware that I had made that many, even though they were entirely justified reverts. I made a mistake, but I've no history of being blocked before. Should I really be blocked because of this?}}

• Note to reviewing admin: The other party was blocked as well. Also, no need to consult me should you deem a unblock appropriate. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the point the editor is trying to make in the unblock rant is. Is it "Bad admin"? In that case, I'd deny outright, but there seems to be some acceptance toward the end. I recommend the blocked editor reviewWikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not expressing myself in a better way, but English isn't my first language. What I'm trying to say, is that this user shouldn't have been a problem if he was blocked, as he should be, from the begining from where I reported him. I don't deny that I broke the 3RR, and I don't say that the admin didn't follow the rules. Though you can't always let rules replace common sense. I don't think I deserved the block, even though I've no difficulties to admit I made a mistake to engage myself to edit-warring with this guy, but I was frustrated since I had already reported him and his other socks, with no actions taken against him. And I know from previous experiences with this user that talking with him won't help. So, I had already reported him, I made a discussion entry, I have a clean history, I didn't recieve a warning... But again, I admit I broke the rule, and you choose to do whatever you feel like doing. The TriZ (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Loop

I'm not quite sure what is going on with the edit war at List of Assyrian musicians but it seems you've created a redirect loop. Please note that if you have a dispute on the article you should follow the steps listed at dispute resolution, not engage in an edit war with the other editor. —Nn123645 (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really not that hard to understand, there are vandalizers in form of anon. ip numbers who in fact probably are all socks to Am6212 (talk · contribs). The article that is supposed to be used is List of Assyrian/Syriac musicians, but if course it will be a loop if the vandalizers keep redirects it to List of Assyrian musicians, which then redirects back. So why don't you do your job, if you are an admin, and block the guy instead of helping the vandalizers by doing their job. The TriZ (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AS Roma

Hi, i'm the guy who keeps re-adding the hooliganism section of the AS Roma page and you're the one who keeps deleting it. I was wondering if we could converse here and attempt to find some kind of common ground through debate rather than the petty deletions and additions that are currently taking place. Many thanks, SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.151.242 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, post new posts at the bottom. Secondly, I only re-deleted it once, and I said why. I've stated my case already, and I think you should take this to the next level, suggestly to some soccer project. The TriZ (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi The TriZ, this is a warning to stop edit warring at Middle East and other articles. A quick glance at the history of this page shows that while there has been frequent reverting on the main article, there has been zero discussion about it on the corresponding talk page. Although there appears to be one or two reverts each day, please keep in mind that users can still be blocked for edit warring, regardless of whether they violate the three-revert rule or not. The 3RR is not some kind of magic barrier, and gaming the system is considered equally disruptive. A look into your mainspace contributions shows that the majority of them appear to consist of reverts/edit warring. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, and the best way to resolve conflicts is by discussing it with other users. Please stop edit warring or else blocks of some shape or form will have to be issued. Chaldean has also been warned (and so will Shmayo). Thanks, Khoikhoi 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Al Qamishli. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Khoikhoi 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't even make 4 reverts in the article, I made 3 reverts, in one edit I only added new sources. You block me but not your friend [[::User:Chaldean|Chaldean]] ([[::User talk:Chaldean|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Chaldean|contribs]]) who actually did break the rule here, why is that? Why your holding your friends back? We know you are a supporter of Assyrianism, maybe as you're biased, you shouldn't be dealing with this issues, don't you agree? The TriZ (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Abusive requests are always declined. See WP:GAB.  Sandstein  11:17, 6 April 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Let's stick to the facts here, where is it abusive? I made 3 reverts, not 4, read again what I write. I question the blocking admins neutrality, that is not abusive, since I have reasons to do that. The TriZ (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From WP:3RR, and I quote "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:48, 6 April 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Feel free to block me for edit-warring, because sure, I'm guilty to that just as the other guy is, [[::User:Chaldean|Chaldean]] ([[::User talk:Chaldean|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Chaldean|contribs]]), but I wasn't blocked for edit-warring, I was blocked for breaking the 3RR. And I haven't broke it. The TriZ (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please reread Jayron32's decline above. Whether you technically violated 3RR or not is irrelevant and splitting hairs is unlikely to help your case. —Travis^talk 18:37, 6 April 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You don't understand, so I was blocked for edit-warring, I have no problems admitting I made something wrong. I basically was edit-warring to the same extent as the other guy (user:Chaldean), he had received the same warning as me, he has a longer record of being blocked and warned for edit-warring. So why block me, and not him? I know he and the blocking admin knows eachother since before. As I said, I can take my block, but I can't take the double standards, the blocking admin has handled this all wrong, and I want justification for that. The TriZ (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It could be that you were blocked a few weeks ago for edit warring, and were unblocked on the understanding you wouldn't do so again, or for the fact that you keep leaving disruptive edit summaries such as "You're clearly driven by your own agenda and you're deliberately destroying this project, leave or begin to act constructively." and "Are you kidding me? Are you here to contribute or not? Your destructive edits must be put to an end." I haven't looked at the content of your edits, but if they're anywhere near as uncivil, then this block is totally justified even without the edit warring. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:17, 6 April 2009 (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.

No wonder I'm being uncivil, when you're stupid. Look at my block log, I wasn't blocked for uncivility or even edit-warring, sure block me for that, I don't care, but I was blocked on wrong bases and if you wanna block, you gonna have to block the other guy aswell. But no, the blocking admin is protecting his own friend, can't you see it? Btw, about my revert wars recently, it has been with socks to Am6212 (talk · contribs), and even to this day [16] he is reverting with his socks. The TriZ (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people

Hi, you asked why include Chaldea and Assyria links in the article on Chaldeans and Assyrians? You must be joking. I'm going to replace those links. See Heritage. Greater Syria (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You must be ignorant? The article is about the modern group, not the ancient one. The names Chaldean and Assyrian has only been used for a shorter time. The TriZ (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the rudeness? The modern groups are the descendants of the ancient ones, or have they just usurped those names for effect? It's a shame to discover all this disunity among the few Iraqi minorities who preserved the native identity. Greater Syria (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they have just usurped those names, there is no evidence that the modern group of Assyrians and Chaldeans are the decendents of the ancient ones. Our homeland is Beth Nahrin and Tur Abdin, not Assyria and Chaldea. You may take it for rudeness, but years of fighting over this has been tiresome. The TriZ (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)