User talk:Garzo/archive/2005-11-23-2006-05-23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo/archive/2005-11-23-2006-05-23.

Contents

[edit] {{Language}}

Thanks for telling. :-) — Instantnood 16:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] short explanation

Hello Gareth!

Please look at the situation that I will try to explain. There exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. It must be accepted a neutral point of view like the OSCE see also the link[[1]]. To state in the first paragraph that the Moldovan Transnistrian Republic exists is too much. There is no republic without a State and officially is not recognized by any country. A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements. I will repet myself one more time: There exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. It must be accepted a neutral point of view like the OSCE see also the link[[2]]. OSCE is The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which aims especially to deal exactly with this kind of situations and to prevent conflicts and to make peace. As the time of speaking the only term that is acceptable for both sides is the term "Transnistria region" since de-jure is in the componence of the Moldova. I will repeat one more time: there exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. Not a single country recognized the Transnistrian regime. That's all. Link to US State Dept. USA recognize the territorial integrity of Moldova (Link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5357.htm).

So, is rather POV what you say. It's better to state the truth. And for the time of speaking Transnistria is only a region part of Moldova.

It is also internationally recognized as one of the "frozen conflict" region as stated by the Council of Europe.

Facts about Transnistria (internationally recognized by all the official powers):
  • is a part of Moldova
  • is a "frozen conflict" region
  • is one of the most illegitime organization terroriziing people (had connection with Saddam's Iraq)

[[3]]

I hope now that I've convinced you and you'll be so kind to repair back.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

As long as there is de-facto organized control of the territory, it is a state, specifically called unrecognized state. Transnistria is not a single one. Not to say that articles should be discussed in the article talk pages, where other people may express their opinion, not in private propaganda crusade. mikka (t) 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What political crusade? As far as it is internationally recognized Transnistria is supported only by Russia. And not to mention from where do you come from? Do we?
I just stated the neutral facts from USA and OSCE ( Link to US State Dept. USA recognize the territorial integrity of Moldova (Link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5357.htm). ) And do you try to make a point or what?  Bonaparte  talk & contribs
I really do not enjoy political soapboxing on my talk page. I intervened into what might have become an edit war between you at Russian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I used the simple name 'Transnistria' because it is the name the article is under, and simplicity is often the better solution. I used the appellation 'unrecognised state', because that links to a list of such things. There is no legal definition as to what a 'state' can be. The de facto existance of Transnistria cannot be denied, no matter how much anyone might wish it not to be there. The fact that it is not an internationally recognised political entity is a diplomatic reality, rather than a physical one. In the section of the article which discusses places in which Russian has some official status, it is reasonable to mention that the language is official in the unrecognised state of Transnistria. The use of the word 'unrecognised' adds sufficient doubt that anything about Transnistria can actually be 'official'. Please post any replies at Talk:Russian language. --Gareth Hughes 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ΠΑΣΠ

Not sure how good your Greek is, but I bet it's better than mine... Please take a look at this article and speedy, if needed. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite WP:CSD A8, but I speedied it anyway. I'm sure someone will tell me that I shouldn't have done that. The article was a copyvio in Greek, so an English translation could not be used, nor could it be transwikied to el. I felt that it either could be speedied now, or just add to the backlog. --Gareth Hughes 11:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Sulpice Church, Paris

Hi, I have no idea why you reverted my post. I was there just two weeks ago looking specifically for the line I described. I went there because the line is mentioned in the daVinci Code, but I made no mention of the book and I did not speculate as to the P&S being as described in the book, but rather took the explanation posted in the church! The brass line is there, it does end on the north wall and it does climb the wall and end in a sphere. I didn't speculate, I took nothing from a work of fiction, but did document the facts as they are. The only thing I took on faith was the P&S description posted in the church. 165.247.181.182 18:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)tom

I'm new to WIKI, so if I have made procedural errors, please advise.

Well, I really have no idea what you're talking about. 165.247.181.182 (talk • contribs) has made two edits: one to Saint-Sulpice (Paris) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and one to my talk page. I have never edited that article. Now, you may be talking about an article which mentioned the church, which you edited from a different IP address. I cannot remember reverting anything like this. You may find it useful to create an account to solve the problem of changing IP addresses. So, unless you can tell me which article you're talking about, and pehaps some additional information, I can only say that you're seeing things. --Gareth Hughes 18:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad?? new links on wiki

Hello

you have sent me this message:

User talk:147.229.221.xxx From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Gareth Hughes 23:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. --Gareth Hughes 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It is my IP so the message has to be for me. You told me that I added private website on wiki. I did not! Prove it. What link on which page?

I have no idea how wikipedia works and I did not find any email to reach you so I save this message here. I hope you can read it.

My mail is resvol2(_at_)volny.cz

Please send me an answer soon!

147.229.221.xxx

Yes, you can see a list of all contributions made by your IP address here. On three days in the last month you have edited Wikipedia. All of your edits have been about the addition of external links. IP addresses which contribute nothing but external links are viewed with suspicion. It was my judgement that the links you supplied were not of sufficient merit to be included in the articles. we generally prefer external links that are carefully chosn by those who contribute to the improvement of the text of the article. Wholescale addition of external links is frowned upon. You also fail to understand the wording of the system message you received. The commercial or personal nature of such links is difficult to prove or disprove. The point is that Wikipedia does discriminate on the worth of external links. There is no reason why the links you added should be kept. --Gareth Hughes 11:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC concerning Roylee

Thanks to BanyanTree, things are set going now: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. Your name is mentioned; your input would be appreciated. — mark ✎ 10:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added my name to the list. I think my only involvement was a few reverts near the end of the Roylee (talk • contribs) account, and then noticing Roy Lee's Junior (talk • contribs) had been created. By the way, have you met IJzeren Jan? He's into Slavic languages and conlangs, and wants to update the nl version of {{language}}. --Gareth Hughes 16:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judas Iscariot

This is in my watchlist because of the Elgar link; I have no theological ax to grind. You just took out some promotional text from a link to bereanbiblechurch.in, but I wonder about the link itself (added last week). It does seem like just another random piece of Internet millenial proselytizing - does the link belong in an encyclopedia? David Brooks 16:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the little addition, as you say, because it is promotional rather than descriptive. 202.149.48.2 (talk • contribs) has been doing little else than adding external links to a church website. I generally take a dim view of users who do nothing but add external links. I feel that the linked article has an interesting viewpoint, but that we can remove it as we don't really need it. I've been removing this user's links from quite a few other articles. --Gareth Hughes 16:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] iso2

Hi. User:CJLippert asked me a question that I thought you might be able to answer on Talk:Algonquin language. Bascially, the issue is where you get the iso2 code for languages: I always get it from Ethnologue 14, but CJLippert points out that the 15th edition is more updated it has different info, but I can't figure out where it even lists the iso2 code. The problem is finding out what iso2 code for Algonquin is. Please help us out, thanks. --Hottentot 05:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just replied over on the article talk page. It's not as easy as it looks, but I've developed a bit of a system for finding ISO 639-2 codes. --Gareth Hughes 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! --Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like campaigning like this (which would incline me towards opposing), it doesn't help that the nominator is continually locked in a revert war (again, oppose) and it really doesn't help that the candidate doesn't want it. --Gareth Hughes 15:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey, Gareth, earlier today I posted a question to the helpdesk, but given your experience with the language template you might be able to answer me as well: do you know if it is possible to add a timestamp (or a date) to a template? If you use "subst" you get the date when the template was created, and when you don't use it you get today's date. But do you know if there is a way (possibly by using some more complicated coding) to get the date when the template was used? Cheers, --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 14:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've written a template that displays today's date at wikicities:c:religion:template:observe. I believe the same technique can be used here. --Gareth Hughes 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. But I'm afraid the same technique cannot used here without problems. It's not today's date I'm after, but the day when a template was placed on a page. I'm sure that can't be done without using {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} etc. But as soon as you use it in a template, you get the date when the template was created, not the day when it was applied. And I haven't found a way to avoid that problem... --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 15:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
One way to do this would be to set a parameter in the article itself to {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} etc. This would realise the current date when the parameter was added. It is not really much more than getting the implementor of the template to type in the date of implementation. --Gareth Hughes 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moldovan Language

Sorry about that. I am aware of the rule but I did not want to revert to the same thing that existed before since Node ue did in all fairness make some spelling corrections. At the same time I did not realize that I did 4 reverts. Constantzeanu 15:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution requested

I am looking for dispute resolution on the Income Tax in the United States. I am having problems with Taxman reverting everything I source and claiming that his reasons are because I don't source them when I plainly do. Please have a word with him. Thanks. --bb69 19:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

Yes, please see the relevant RfC. Thanks - Taxman Talk 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] username

Hi, when a user called Richard Wannel sucks his Wannel! (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is vandalising, what do we do? Seriously, do where do I report him? WP:AIV? Izehar (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Having an inappropriate username is cause for a permanent block. I'll have a look to see if this appropriate action. --Gareth Hughes 15:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, he's already been permablocked for vandalism - thanks anyway. Izehar (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese Language

Thank you for your interest in the Maltese Language. I have replied to you on the talk page. Showing Maltese, as if only derived from Arabic is incorrect. The formation of Maltese despite being semitic in its grammatical structure, modern words from Italian and English were taken, particularly in the 20th Century. Maltesedog 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

I think I've explained this one over on the article talk page. It is the grammar of Maltese that is important: it shows us clearly where the language comes from. No one denies that Maltese developed out of the Arabic spoken there from the eighth century. All languages borrow vocabulary from other languages, some languages do this more than others. Malta's unique position has meant that much Italian vocabulary has been taken into the language, and its history has meant that much English has been borrowed. These borrowings can get to the level where it is difficult to see the original source of the language, which may be the case for Maltese. However, as an Arabic speaker, I can clearly see that Maltese is derived from Arabic. --Gareth Hughes 19:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From

How is it correct priest or father? I saw on your page "priest". Is there a difference? I would like to know in order not to have another connotation.--Bonaparte talk 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Constantzeanu may have seen something different to me. I was upset by the suggestion that I am only trying to impose my point of view. However, as Constantzeanu said, Father is the more usual title here, but priest works too. On Wikipedia, I let people know who I am, but I do not ask people to treat me differently. --Gareth Hughes 19:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] revert edit

I would like to ask you Father Gareth Hughes to take into account my proposal and to revert back the changes of Node. There is a majority of users that don't agree with this controversial version as seen at the talk page. --Bonaparte talk 20:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We are getting there piece by piece. I believe Node has a contribution to make, and the article can reflect his voice. In fact, the article will be the better for having been pulled around by so many people: we'll end up with real consensus, not just one person's view. In the end, it's not what I, you, Node or anyone else wants, it's finding the elusive way of getting what we all want in there. So, we'll start working on the bits and pieces of the article. --Gareth Hughes 20:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
We will start from a version that is viewed by most of them the most near to the truth. We don't need an inflamatory one to continue the edit war. Please understand this and of course if we take issue by issue there will be found a very good version. --Bonaparte talk 21:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
For God sake! Don't put more fan on flames. It's better not to revert anymore. Don't you see he's trolling and war editing? --Bonaparte talk 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about some nice haggis

How goes it Gareth!

I just wrote up an etymology paragraph in the haggis article, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it. I can count everything I know about linguistics on one finger (maybe two), and haggis' origins seem to be about as clear as mud, so I thought someone more wise to the ways of funny old languages should doublecheck me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wiki credit

I didn't know where to report this, so I just picked a random admin from the list. At http://www.icorrection.com/Ana-H/helix.php there's a wikipedia article without giving wikipedia credit. Of course that won't do. DirkvdM 08:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a message at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#icorrection.com to alert the community of this. There seems to be no contact details for the website at all, so I haven't been able to send the non-compliance letter. It might be that we'll have to refer the case to meta:non-compliant site coordination, who may issue a takedown notice if a site cannot be contacted. --Gareth Hughes 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yi language

Hi again. Would you be able to help me figure out the iso3 codes for the Yi language? This link is somewhat confusing, as it doesn't give the iso3 code for Central Yi, but it does for Sichuan Yi, which are both indented at the same line or whatever. --Khoikhoi 08:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do like your new name, by the way. I'll post an answer to this over on talk:Yi language, as it seems more relevant there. --Gareth Hughes 12:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Good articles

Hi Gareth, I've been on the lookout for articles that meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Good articles, & figured you have probably encountered a few in your area of attention. Could you create a list of possible candidates for consideration? Thanks -- llywrch 20:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boolor and language

Hi Gareth. I've posted replies on Template_talk:Boolor#Something_strange and on Template talk:Language#Conversion to qif. – Adrian | Talk 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into {{boolor}}. I've put my thoughts on procedure at template talk:language. I'd like to have some input on improving the display style of the template after this, if you could help. --Gareth Hughes 17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elazig Province

Hi Garzo, i want to ask why you revert my edit about Elazig Province. As you see in the article it's a provience of Turkey.--Ugur Basak 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed the article from Category:Kurdistan. The article on Kurdistan says, "Kurdistan is both the name of a geographic region and a cultural region in the Middle East named after the Kurds, a large ethnic group living in parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Syria". That article also includes Image:Kurdish lands 92 cropped.jpg, which shows Elazığ as part of this region. Therefore it is reasonable to add the article to this category. It seems that your motive is entirely political. You are using the edit summary rvv, which stands for 'revert vandalism'. This is a misleading statement, as your edit concerns the point of view of the article rather than vandalism. Please explain your reasoning, but be aware that politically-motivated editing and misleading edit summaries are not acceptable here. --Gareth Hughes 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Not political. I don't deny there is a Kurdish population there. Just Kurdistan is not fully suitable for it, may be a category like "Kurdish inhabited areas" is more suitable.--Ugur Basak 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Heja Helweda added the category. I realise that the name does the impression of being a political entity, but Kurdish inhabited areas is the definition of Kurdistan, as there is no political entity apart from the Kurdish Autonomous Region. I think the category is reasonable, but maybe you should talk to Heja about the name. --Gareth Hughes 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not so big problem for me. But Kurdistan category seems a bit general, Kurdish inhabitad areas seems better for me. That's my opinion. In current category there are historical cities, kingdoms etc. and current cities.--Ugur Basak 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why you are reverting them back... The answer should be either becasue you know this is the truth and correcitng or you consider last edits as vandalism. May I ask which one? --Dbl2010 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I explained exactly why on your talk page: it is wholly reasonable that the traditional regions inhabited by Kurds are placed in Category:Kurdistan. I have had this conversation already with Ugur Basak above. --Gareth Hughes 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I didnt say that I removed it because geographıcal or not. Please do not judge my acts by others words. As an administrator you should be less political. --Dbl2010 01:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello you Garzo guy. Well, then this turns out that you are a real humanist, or not? You think that by adding those articles into the category Kurdistan you become a neutral human. But what you cannot think about is there is no country named Kurdistan. You know, by adding a suffix of -istan one can make every single word a country name. For example, if I call the west of China as Turkistan, this will mean that there is a Turkish country there. And anyone can call it Turkistan since there is a significant Turkish population in the western China if one thinks in the same manner as you.

Kurdistan is a country name and whoever calls anywhere of the world as Kurdistan means the separation of Turkey and relevant countries. This is very straightly considered as separatism and if you still think that Kurdistan should be stated there, you are qualified for being a very clever guy maybe in UK, but not in TR. --85.107.74.82 17:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought you should know that the Help Desk mailing list is getting hit by several spammers (or one person with multiple email addresses), all using the exact same wording, calling you names for not letting them vandalize Category:Kurdistan. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

I'm sorry about that, Zoe. I think I've managed to broker a compromise that amenable users of both sides can agree on. However, there are a few who just don't want to work together on this. I put a 24-hour block on one user today who repeatedly removed articles from the category: that's probably the source of the nonsense. --Gareth Hughes 18:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No need to apologize, it's certainly not your fault. I was just giving you a heads up in case there are more vandalism attempts. I suggested that spamming the mailing list with their complaint was not the way to get resolution on the dispute. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Ağrı Province
  • Batman Province
  • Bingöl Province
  • Bitlis Province
  • Diyarbakır Province
  • Elazig Province
  • Erzincan Province
  • Erzurum Province
  • Gaziantep Province
  • Hakkari Province
  • Kahramanmaraş Province
  • Kars Province
  • Malatya Province
  • Mardin Province
  • Siirt Province
  • Tunceli Province
  • Şanlıurfa Province

These are the list of provinces that you are defending to death to put it under Category:Kurdistan and you are telling that it is not a mistake to put them in a traditional and populated region. And you are also reverting them back and give same reason to all people prejudicedly without asking. But I wonder if you ever have thought following way: Those provinces has pure human drawen borders by goverment as political regions. And they build a political map of a country. A culturel traditional etc. map cannot have exact borders.

  1. How someone can use these politicaly drawen provinces to as pieces to build a non political region?
  2. How some one can say that left side of that political border is a cultural region and right side another? How can a virtual border can be represnted with exact points?????????????????

I believe on facts. Tell me a good fact please. Thanks. Dbl2010 12:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The removal of this category is mostly done by accounts or anons who contribute nothing else but remove the category. Those who have opposed the category have also been involved in various acts of vandalism, which does not predispose me to their argument. In conversation with Heja Helweda below, he pointed out why the category is appropriate. --Gareth Hughes 23:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You completely avoided the main question and just took the part you can answer. Please tell me about political and cultural maps part. Dbl2010 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nasrani

Does your expertise extend to the Indian branch of Syriac Christianity? There is a confusing number of redirects [4] and the target articles get switched back and forth [5]. --Pjacobi

[edit] Requested move

Hi. Would you please be able to move Selonian (language) to Selonian language for me? The Wiki stoped me from doing it and I noticed that you're an admin. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

All done: no problem: glad to be of service. --Gareth Hughes 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again! --Khoikhoi 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu/Indo/Arabic numerals

Hi Garzo. I don't know if you have any idea about the correct naming of the numerals 1,2,3... There's a vote going on at Talk:Hindu-Arabic numerals#Voting whether to move it back to Arabic numerals or keep it Hindu-Arabic numerals. Cheers -- Svest 01:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

[edit] Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, Aramean, etc.

I just wanted to comment that according to the United States Census these groups all comprise one ethnic group (non-Arab). It's officially listed as Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean on the report. http://www.chaldeansonline.net/nabu/census2000.html.

I'm interested in improving all these categories in anyway possible so I'll involve myself in anything including the miniproject.

[edit] Virtual Thai Keyboard

If you're looking for a user-friendly on-screen virtual Thai keyboard let's try this Virtual Thai Keyboard. It can work directly with most XP softwares even with Word or MSN Messenger.

It will allow you to easily type Thai even if you do not have a real Thai keyboard.

You may freely download this freeware Virtual Thai Keyboard from MOG Software's website.


Bye, bye !

Virtual Thai Keyboard

[edit] The issue of Kurdish area or Kurdistan

Hi,

I think that based on historical facts, the region has been called by the name "Kurdistan", at least from 12th century. Both Safavid and Ottoman Empires had provinces called by that name. Moreover, in Kurdish language, this name("Kurdistan") just means "Kurdish inhabited area or region" (not a state). On the other hand, I understand the sensitivity of some of the editors, and the best way to reach a compromise is to argue that "the name in question, does not refer to a political entity, just a geo-cultural region, as stated in the page itself. We may also include a short explanation (in Kurdistan's page) that the name is not recognized by the Turkish and Syrian states, however Iraqi and Iranian states do recognize it, and refer to some of their lands, in official documents, by that name."

I hope this will convince them in keeping the name as it is.

Heja Helweda 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ABOUT MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE

HI, I SEE, YOU ARE LINGUIST...? BUT,WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE (NOT GREECE,BULGARIAN,SERBIAN....)? HAVE YOU READ ANY MACEDONIAN BOOK,SONG? SLAVS? WHERE ARE FROM "SLAVS"? WHAT ARCHEOLOGY......ABOUT "SLAVS"? GOD IS GREAT,BUT RNA,DNK MEDICAL RESULTS TODAY ARE:MACEDONIANS ARE "BROTHERS IN BLOOD" WITH OLDER MEDITERANIAN PEOPLE GROUPS. ARE "SLAVS" MEDITERANIANS....? ROMANTIC IDEA FROM 19-20 CENTURY IS DEAD.THANK YOU GOD FOR THIS. ARCHEOLOGY.....PEOPLE ARE AT MACEDONIA BETWEN 600.000-240.000 y. C14 (CARBON)TEST........MACEDONIAN HAVE VILLAGES 7260 y. MAZ D` AZIL CAVE (FRANCE) SCRIPTS.....13000 y......?WHY FRANCE? OSINCANI-SKOPJE-MACEDONIA SCRIPTS.....9.000 y..... GOVRLEVO-SKOPJE-MACEDONIA SCRIPTS.....9.000 y..... ALL SCRIPTS ARE WRITEN WITH IDENTICAL FONETIC ALPHABET. MY 9 YEARS OLD SON RECOGNIZE WORDS....HOW? ANSWER IS SIMPLE.....WE ARE MACEDONIANS ABORIGINAL......FROM PRA-HISTORY (MACEDONIAN WORD) OLDEST SCRIPTS FOR WORD MACEDONIA IS 7.000 YEARS OLD. WRITER?....YES.... PIR MAKEDONSKI.....NAME PIR..LIKE PIREI (CITY),PIRIN PLANINA (MOUNTAIN),PIRINEAS (MOUNTAINS) YOU UNDERSTAND ME ABOUT......? OR YOU "KNOW SO MUCH" ABOUT "SLAVS" "SOUTHSLAVS"? MAYBE ABOUT "HELENIZAM" "HELLENIC" "GREECE" "GREEK MACEDONIA" ?

[edit] Possible Rollback Request

Gareth, Doughamp made some changes to Aramaic of Jesus which seem to be advertisements and plugs for Hebrew Jesus websites. I was debating whether or not to simply edit them and make mention to Hebrew Jesus theories, or see if they could be removed altogether, so I figure I'd ask you what you think. --Steve Caruso 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes: it seems to bantering, and it promotes two websites. I've reverted the edit, but I believe that there is room for expansion about Hebrew in the article. However, I share the same view as you do, that Hebrew was not the first language of the population at the time. --Gareth Hughes 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wishes

I saw you several times while going round to wish. I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican userbox

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page the other day! It may interest you to know there is now an Anglican userbox. It's {{user religion|anglican}}. --Angr (t·c) 09:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assyria Category

Why are you taking off the Iraqi cities that were historically Assyrian? Kurdistan isn't a real country either. That is just offensive. The cities I linked were all historically ASSYRIAN.

oopsy, I sent this to you by accident. Sorry. you were in the edits too. hehe
Yes, I am part of the edit history. I have mostly been defending Category:Kurdistan and will likewise defend Category:Assyria. However, as you will find if you read some of the comments above, some Turks find the whole idea of non-Turks living in Turkey quite difficult to handle. --Gareth Hughes 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Check out Assyrians.

I followed through on your advice about historic data.

It looks good. You should always remember to add your signature and date stamp to any post to a talk page. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the post. It is also really useful if you write an edit summary for every edit you make: use the little box below the edit window. Notice that there is a Show preview button. This allows you see what your edit will look like, so you only have to upload a single edit to a page, rather than uploading every little change. --Gareth Hughes 00:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] syriac people

Hi Im new with the miniproject assyro-chaldean..

I was woundering what you think about collecting every information to that site, that is to link the information about the syriacs into the miniproject, so that we can have the information gathered to one place. Cant you change the project name to Syriac, I think it is more sutiable due to the fact that syriac is a neutral name for the syriacs that is (assyrians/chaldeans/arameans/maronites) and so on.

Fush beshlomo Suryoyo 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC) // Michael

Hi, Michael. I didn't intend the miniproject to be a lengthy affair: that's why its page is a sub-page of an article. I mainly wanted us to discuss how articles about the people variously called Assyrians, Chaldeans, Aramaeans and Syriacs be coordinated. There have been various thoughts about merging them. I tend to use the name Syriac to indicate those people whose culture is based on that language. --Gareth Hughes 00:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you know where the project for merging the syriac people is? is there a ongoing project? Suryoyo 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Some editors have noted that we have a number of articles under different names for what is essentially the same people, and it was suggested that some be merged. However, I am unsure if those who originally suggested this were fully aware of the meanings and nuances behind each of the various names. The miniproject is simply a 'talking shop' to allow us to gather a consensus about these articles. I think that you and Benne could put a fair case to the other there for using Syriacs as the main designation. --Gareth Hughes 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I wounder, I have seen several articles that give wrong information, for example Queen Zenobia, Odnatheus, that is The kingdom of Palmyra is called arab? The truth is that is is aramean city, the same goes for the Nabateans, I wounder why someone isnt changing them, or maby these things take time. I would like to ask you who things work here. Is there a final editor in wikipedia? that is, if I change something, like for example the statement that Zenobia is from an arab stock, which is a lie. How will that be processed? Suryoyo 23:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC) //Michael

[edit] Places inhabited by Kurds

Hi Garzo,

This is what I added to Category talk:Kurdish areas:

I would prefer something like Areas/cities (predominantly) inhabited by Kurds. A town like Midyat could be included in this category, but classifying it as a Kurdish city, or Tur Abdin as a Kurdish area would be incorrect, in my opinion.
There is a conversation with Heja Helweda above in which he gives good reason for the use of the term Kurdistan. --Gareth Hughes 23:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. What's the point in including all the national or subnational entities that a particular city or region has ever been part of? I've noticed Category:Assyria being added to all the places where the Assyrians once ruled. What will be next? Italians adding Category:Roman Empire to the cities where the Romans used to dwell? Or Iranians labelling everything as belonging to the Category:Persia?
Besides, the term Kurdistan is heavily politicised, and ambiguous. If it's really deemed necessary to include historical regions as categories, the category should in my opinion be renamed Category:Kurdistan (historical region). ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Wars

I'm still learning the basics of Wikipedia but I'm having a problem with user Khoi Khoi, he keeps erasing the Assyrians page which I changed to reference ancient Assyrians and redirecting it to the Assyrian people page. What can I do about that?

12.15.7.70 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The best procedure is to talk, and not to assume the other party is being malicious. Khoikhoi isn't deleting the page, but making a redirect, which is very different. This is probably because he feels that the two subjects, ancient and modern Assyrians, are better discussed in the same article. It is generally better to have one good article fed by redirects than lots of substandard articles. I imagine that Khoikhoi's motive is encyclopaedic tidiness. Write something at talk:Assyrians, talk:Assyrian people or user talk:Khoikhoi, and say that you find it difficult to understand why he's doing this; then, if not convinced, you can say how you would like it to be. If the two of you cannot decide, you can hold a straw poll of interested users, so that it doesn't become an issue between two people. Also, you might want to consider logging in or creating an account: names are easie to deal with than annonymous IP addresses. --Gareth Hughes 15:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ingrian language

Hi,

Would you be able to move Ingrian language to Izhorian language? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's done. --Gareth Hughes 15:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox_Language

Template:Language is in severe violation of the Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates policy. I am working on a replacement and will begin migrating articles to it. The format and variable names are in line with the current scheme, with one major exception. The "familycolor" classification is entirely original research. That "feature" is also at the root of most meta-template problems with the present language template.

I am going to begin migrating articles, with careful attention that no information is lost. -- Netoholic @ 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The infobox does not have the flexibility of the original. You have taken no care whatsoever to involve those who have been working on these articles. Your bombastic individualistic approach has been noted by other editors. I consider that changing to the new template in its unfinished state is a violation of WP:POINT. Use template talk:language to talk to concerned editors rather tan ramming policies down our throats. --Gareth Hughes 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No no no... By reverting my attempts to make a valid replacement, YOU are violating specifically violating WP:AUM. The infobox will not magically have all the features immediately, but if I can convert even half, that is better than ignoring the developer's request to actively begin removing meta-templates from use. Rather than fighting edit wars, you should be encouraging that work, not stiffling. There is patently no way to work on a replacement in a vacuum. -- Netoholic @ 08:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rollback

Stop misusing your admin rollback function to fight edit wars over MoS issues. From Wikipedia:Revert#Admins, rollback "is solely to be a timesaving shortcut for reverting mass vandalism". No matter how passionately you feel, nothing about my infobox replacement is vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 08:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Second warning - do not misuse rollback for non-vandalism, as in this series of reverts. -- Netoholic @ 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dene-Caucasian language category

Garzo, why did you nix the category on the Dene-Caucasian language macrofamily? If you have a reasonable excuse, I'll understand; I just really want to know why. It is a perfectly reasonable addition. Palafox 31 December 2005

Well, I and others do not believe it to be perfectly reasonable. Dene-Caucasian is a fringe theory, and has no wide acceptance among linguists. As such I believe that it is totally inappropriate to place these language articles in this category. --Gareth Hughes 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a fringe theory, and one I don't buy. But it still deserves a category along with all the other theoretical language families listed. Perhaps you would be happier if I pre-pended a "Proposed" or 'Hypothetical" in front of the category title. Eh? Palafox

I don't think so and I've put it up at WP:CFD. The discussion can continue there. --Pjacobi 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Jtdirl

You may be interested to know that there is a Request of Arbitration against User:Netoholic. Feel free to contribute. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have no personal quarrel with this user, and had not come across him before now. I am more concerned with the future of template:language. --Gareth Hughes 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. He is a capable user. Unfortunately his treatment of you above is all too typical of his treatment of a lot of people lately. He have apparently driven some users away with how he has treated them, had offended a lot of people, as well as issuing threats on occasion. His conduct has already been the subject of one arbcom set of rulings. Tragically he does not seem to realise that there is a problem with his conduct. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:AUM

By reverting Template:Language, you are in violation of WP:AUM. IMPROVE the thing, don't crash Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so silly: your edits broke about half of the instances of the template. The editors of Macedonian language would like to know what a lawngreen language, those at Nahuatl language would like to know were the links to the language varieties have gone, and those working on Ido would like to know why the whold infobox just fell apart on them. This all suggests that you really don't know what you're doing. Please read Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Accessiblty concerns with css class hiddenStructure: there are good reasons why the CSS kludge should not be used. --Gareth Hughes 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I know what I'm doing, I just don't know how I can do it without the oppressive stance you've taken against me. The sloppiness related to "familycolor" is what created "lawngreen", and it could be fixed by changing the infobox call on the article. This is a symptom of why your convoluted structure doesn't work. The CSS class is the best option we have... but that doesn't matter. What matters is that WP:AUM is policy and violations of it directly impact the performance of this website. Some functionality is lost, but we have to make accommodations. Stop being so proud of that kludgy wonder you created. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cappadocian fathers

Hi

I dont think I have put the whole category Cappadocian Father in the list of Syriacs. then again I wounder why you dont think that cappadocian father belong with the syriacs? I would appreciate if you could elaborate about the origins of cappadocia in the time of the greeks and romans.

Suryoyo 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC) // Michael

I see that you are fast with the RV function, I would appreciate if we would have a chance to disscuss the matter first. Because now this will end up with that we will put them back later again.

Suryoyo 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC) //Michael

I just happen to have the Cappadocian Fathers on my watchlist, so I wasn't fast at all: I just saw them added to what I believe is the wrong category. Cappadocia is quite a distance west of the Euphrates. None of my books mention that they were Syriacs and they never wrote in Syriac. So, unless you can point me to a reference that says they were Syriacs, I think there is plenty of evidence to say they were not. --Gareth Hughes 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, where do you get the idea of that syriacs liv west of the euphrates? Kingdom of Edessa, hatra, Sinjar, Nsibis, Arbil, These cities was inhabited by Syriacs. In the conquest of Tigranes of Armenia, when Appian describes the conquest he speaks of the Appian's History of Rome: The Syrian Wars (§§46-51): "Tigranes conquered all of the Syrian peoples this side of the Euphrates", that is there are syrians on the other side. And if you want to know more about cappadocia, then please just follow the link Cappadocia and you will se that "Cappadocians" was called White Syrians. And if you go to the link and read about the Syrian wars then you will se that that sentence is a description of the conquest of cappadocia and other free states of the syrians plus the selucid kingdom of antochia (Kingdom of the Syrians/Babylonians).

Suryoyo 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC) // Michael

[edit] No disruption, not making a point

I am following the policy set forth at the developer's request. I have been accommodating of your views, and I'm implementing Infobox_Language only where I can guarantee that no article content is lost. Please stop reverting this effort, because the only disruption being caused is your re-insertion of meta-templates and the only point being made is that you are the de facto owner of the old language template. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUM does not stipulate how meta-templates are to be avoided. The solution has to be a long-term one. Editors who are interested about the meta-template issue discuss their ideas on Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates, and the discussion on the best way forward is far from closed. Editors working on language article use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages to discuss ways of improving the template for language articles. The implementation of a new template has not been discussed there. The last time you did this there were complaints. You cannot dictate terms to others: learn to discuss controversial changes: it's what we all do. --Gareth Hughes 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Over the next few days, I would like to work on implementing the Infobox_Language on the spoken[1] language articles. The goal of this process is to demonstrate that the CSS method will work just as well as the Language template does for those articles. If you want to revert as I go, that is your choice. I won't revert war on the articles, but you'll need to consider how much wasted effort those reverts will cost. You may be able to dismiss my effort/time away, but you're leaving work for your fellow WPLanguage partners, who will eventually have to revisit those articles just as I have. I am asking you, please, don't do this and instead help me by explaining the various requirements. ( [1] - I don't think it is practical or necessary for the constructed and signed languages to use the same template. Things will work better if the functions are split into three templates that are formatted the same but have different content. This can be discussed later.) -- Netoholic @ 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it has been made clear to you that that template isn't wanted. Concerns have raised about it. Some are aesthetic, and some are technical (it doesn't cope with the vast difference in template calls that exist in pages: part of the problem with template:language is that it is backward compatible). Apart from the concerns among those of us who write language articles (not elitism, but practicality: we have to work with it), there are clear concerns on AUM talk whether hiddenStructure is the best approach. Repeatedly adding an unwanted template to articles is disruptive, and you have never engaged in real discussion about it. I believe that you have annoyed enough people with this, and that you should leave it alone for a while. It has got to the stage that I and others have great difficulty seeing the good that you do. You could just let people get on with it: we're thinking through the policy and we'll be happier not being told how to do it. --Gareth Hughes 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem with backward compatibility. As I go, I'll make sure the template parameters are consistent within each article. That is the reason for this strategy. There is no reason templates need to continue to support parameters like "familycolor = lawngreen". By being "backward compatible", you've allowed slopiness to creep in. I am not just blindly replacing the template call, I am truly converting and updating. Frankly, it is not up to you to either dispute WP:AUM's importance and it is not your place to single-handedly decide against the necessary conversion. You could just let me, who has said they are willing to put in this effort, begin without disrupting. You are arguing from a narrow, and selfish, point-of-view. My position has obvious benefits to Wikipedia's basic operation. -- Netoholic @ 01:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What mindboggling arrogance! lol I know Neto tends not to listen to anyone else's views and seems to himself as some sort of Wikipedia pope possessing automatic infallibility, but his above response is so wacky it is funny. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, I made a small adjustment to this template to implement the family colors. It can be seen at Template talk:Infobox Language. It requires a more complex parameter call to the language template, but implements the full family colors system with no meta-templating involved. Please take a look. If you put details of other differences from the current template on that talk page I will try to synch them up - if Netoholic doesn't get to it first. --CBD ☎ ✉ 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Anglican article

Hello, I've just written my first stub, a very short article on the Order of the Holy Cross. Would you mind taking a quick look at it and let me know any suggestions you might have to improve it? Thanks for your time. Benami 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I think it's a great start, better than most stubs. You might want to link some of the geographical names, like New York City, at first mention, an you might want to see if there are any other applicable categories to add to the article, like category:monasteries. I think there is a strong possibility that there are other religious orders with this or a similar name, so a disambiguation might needed, but I'm not entirely sure. Good work though. --Gareth Hughes 00:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your use of the rollback button

A quick perusal of your recent contributions shows that you have been extremely liberal with your use of the 'rollback' button. It is considered extremely bad form to use the rollback button in editing disputes with other users. The rollback button should be used solely for reverting vandalism and for self-reverts. If you are in an editing dispute with another user, you should revert manually. - Mark 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Syriacs

Hi Gareth,

As you might've noticed, I've created a footer template named Template:Syriacs, and added it to the articles concerned. Please feel free to shoot at it. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks really good: thank you for creating it. --Gareth Hughes 17:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you please revert Sargonious's anonymous re-naming of the template? Today I've reverted it twice already. Thanks a lot. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Euphratean

Dear Garzo

You wrote that my entry on Proto-Euphratean took a pro-Nostratic point of view. This I find difficult to understand, as no where in that article did I mention Nostratic language theory.

I do take on board that I have not used sources in that article mentioned, but that was due to the fact that I don't understand Wikipedia's format for crediting sources. Can you help me?

Warm regards

John D. Croft 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misnomer at WP:AUM

Hi Gareth. You wrote "Is it an insect or a female relative?". I do not understand what you want to say with that. Could you explain that to someone with rather limited language capabilities like me :-)? --Adrian Buehlmann 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being acronymous:
  1. "Avoid nested templates" → "ANT".
  2. "Avoid using nested templates" → "AUNT".
THe discussion just seemed faintly too serious to go without a choice acronym! --Gareth Hughes 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Slapping my forehead. Thanks for that nice joke :-). I've been rather stressed by that accursed WP:AUM in the past weeks so I forgot to use my joke detector. I'm sad that this has now so much consequenses onto template:language. I would have been more than happy if qif could have been implemented in MediaWiki code. The CSS thing is ugly but for example for book reference I've come to the conclusion that it is actually the smallest possible evil given that WP:AUM has to be obeyed. I also thought that book reference would be impossible to implement using that CSS trick mainly due to missing logic functions ("and", "or", "not") but CBD and Neto in a joint effort proved me wrong (see Tfd on qif, Template talk:Book reference#Rewrite due to WP:AUM and User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-ref/1). I hope an acceptable solution for template language can be found. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the now defused WP:AUM we were able to go back to the qif variant on the category:citation templates until we have conditionals in MediaWiki. The accessibility problems of the CSS hack now clearly outweigh its very limit value. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Adrian. It is quite a relief to have the sting taken out of AUM and to have the very useful attention of Brion. Although qif is not perfect, it does a decent job for the time being and is more flexible in application than either of the workarounds. I've recently added a couple more calls to template:language to add some more flexibility. I'm not sure how the software handles repeat calls of the same template. Thanks for all the work you've been putting into this subject. --Gareth Hughes 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prepare RfC Neto

if you see Neto applying his template to some languages - can you collect the diffs and post them to Template_talk:Language - section "prepare RfC" ? I think at one point in time we should start RfC if he goes on and on. I thought it allready helps that evidence of misbehavoir is collected, but he does seem not to care. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the diffs of Neto's adding of template:Infobox Conlang to articles. I think wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages was quite clear that this was not the consensus path before it was taken by Neto. Also, I think template:Infobox Language was applied unilaterally to more languages than you have posted the diffs for. As it will have all been done by Neto, you might want to check his contribs for that evidence. --Gareth Hughes 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Hey Garzo,

I've been very careful to not violate the 3RR on Georgian people, but some anon keeps on adding false info/POV. I know you reverted his initial edits [6] but he has continued to revert. Please help. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The page seems to have reverted back. The anon contributor should be encouraged to lay out his claims clearly in the talk page. --Gareth Hughes 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like I'm going to need some help again. The anon refuses to cite his sources for the numbers he is adding. He is also adding controversial information without sources. --Khoikhoi 06:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Erdemsenol

I know neutral points of wiev,but I think you don't know.You have to do perfect.

I quoted WP:NPOV policy because your edits were blatantly anti-Kurdish. Now, you can accuse me of being pro-Kurdish for saying this, which I think is what you were trying to say above, but that turns into a circular argument. As almost all your edits were doing the same thing, removing references to Kurds in any articles about eastern Turkey you could find, I think it is clear that you are pushing a non-neutral line. --Gareth Hughes 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you stop this,I will carry this subject to META WİKİ FOUNDATİON and complain you

W

Please do. --Gareth Hughes 00:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I haven't seen you for a while, so I just wanted to come by and say a word of greetings. That is all :-) --HappyCamper 19:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I've had rather a full schedule with work recently, and, wiki-wise, I've been working on getting articles about languages up to standard. I think I'm due a change of editing direction soon: any suggestions? Have fun! --Gareth Hughes 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
How about making new colourful templates just to help group and organize related information together? I found that this helped encourage more editing from anonymous users - especially if the topics are rather esoteric. I have some templates at the bottom of my user page which I really like. --HappyCamper 13:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, these little navigational templates are usful little tools. A while back I made
Aramaic languages Modern Aramaic languages Aramaic languages

Jewish Neo-Aramaic languages
Lishanid Noshan | Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic | Hulaulá | Lishana Deni | Lishán Didán
Christian Neo-Aramaic languages
Assyrian Neo-Aramaic | Bohtan Neo-Aramaic | Chaldean Neo-Aramaic | Hértevin | Koy Sanjaq Surat | Mlahsô | Senaya | Turoyo
Other Neo-Aramaic languages
Western Neo-Aramaic | Mandaic

 
which was quite handy. It's a good suggestion to have a look for other groups of articles that might benefit from such a template. --Gareth Hughes 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation requested

Would you kindly care to explain why you have removed every single addition I have made to the external links of several languages without giving any explanation whatsoever? The links that have been included are perfectly valid (found on the Omniglot page) and pertinent to the subject that they deal with. 83.131.64.192 05:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. When an anonymous cntributor adds a large collection of links to Wikipedia, they are investigated. In your case, all links were to the same domain,thus they might be spam (added by a bot or by someone with an interest in increasing internet ranking). On investigation of the content of the links, I found that they were glorified link farms. If there is a useful link it might be considered for addition to a Wikipedia article, but adding a link to a page of links is not encyclopaedic. I see you've re-added the links, they will be removed again. Future spamming of this kind will be considered as vandalism. --Gareth Hughes 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of your statements are downright mendacious and insulting. What you find those links to be is your personal opinion that has absolutely no bearing on reality. I added 4 relevant links to 4 different articles which could hardly be labeled as spamming. I spent three years updating the site you so kindly describe as a glorifying link farm. In the meantime it has had over 400 000 clicks and over 150 additions from the people all around the world. There is not one single link there which leads to a commercial site. But I am wasting my time because this really doesn't matter. You are behaving like a lying cybertaliban who, for some reason, is hell-bent on trying to pass off as a devout Christian. Why? Is there are a thought, meditation or quotation that justifies the way you treat other people? Still, I know when to give up. 83.131.23.192 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I get this level of rudeness for deleting someone's spam. As it's your site you're linking, it is considered bad practice. You made a point of pulling apart my life while hiding behind annonymity. I'm glad to hear that you're giving up trying to use Wikipedia to promote your site. --Gareth Hughes 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamtlandic

Perhaps you could help us define what it is? →AzaToth 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'd like me to say. I don't believe that 'a language' is an absolute concept. I've spoken with Peter Isotalo about this kind of thing over at Scanian, and I respect his point of view on this. I believe that Ethnologue went further in the splitting of the Scandinavian dialect continuum than was necessary (NB. Ethnologue gives these Scandinavian lects code points, but they do not appear on the draft list of ISO 639-3 code points: at some point, someone removed them). Compare Ethnologue's treatment of the Oïl languages: they're all lumped under a few code points. Unfortunately, unlike the Linguasphere language code, Ethnologue can only either give or withhold a code point for any given lect, and cannot show any structural relationship to other lects. Given this, I think I would give less weight to Jamtska's uniqueness than Ethnologue does. --Gareth Hughes 20:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to define a language unique, but as I was grown up there, I had easier to understand a norwegian than someone speaking jamtlandic. It's not a dialect of swedish, thats a fact, perhaps define it as a old north norwegian dialect, with simlarities to icelandic? →AzaToth 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It certainly seems to be a conservative lect, and that's the problem: the Scandanavian dialect continuum is at least two-dimensional, and has a significant diachronic axis. Linguasphere gives Jämtska the code 52-AAA-cu. The 52-AAA describes the 'Norsk+ Svenska net'. The net is then divided into the three following outer languages: Íslensk+ Føroysk (52-AAA-a), Norsk-W.+ Nynorsk (52-AAA-b) and Svenska+ Dansk (52-AAA-c). These are considered to be statistically relevant divisions of North Germanic. The third 'outer language', Svenska+ Dansk, is divided into 22 statistically relevant divisions, of which Jämtska (52-AAA-cu) is one. Linguasphere goes as far as giving the subdivisions härjedalska (52-AAA-cua) and jämtska-N. (52-AAA-cub), and notes part of "swedish+ norwegian transition" transition to generalised [52] Svenska (Swedish) & traditional [52] Trøndelags-norsk (Central North Norwegian). This suggests that Jämtska is a relatively equal language variety in terms of intelligibility with other lects as the other 21 main divisions of East Scandinavian languages, the Swedish-Danish-Bokmål group. I hope that helps a little. --Gareth Hughes 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I also found this page, but perhaps that's mostly POV? http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/dokument/jubileumsskrift1985/js1985_nr07_jamska.html →AzaToth 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know — reading that made my dictionary fall apart! The article rehearses all the obvious arguments for the uniqueness of Jamska (little scraps of grammar and vocabulary), and I feel quite sympathetic towards the author's point of view. Jamska obviously has a distinctive and distinguished history. His point about Norn in Orkney is more emotional than scientific. However, Jamska exists in the very tight confines of the North Germanic dialect continuum, where only political hegemony and substantial literature seem to be the determinig factors between language and dialect. It is likely that Jamska will loose out here. --Gareth Hughes 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the article in question have evolved much latly, I opted for a peer reviev at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jamtlandic, perhaps you are intrested. →AzaToth 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common.css

Please undo this edit, as it was not in the original infobox definition. TH cells are centered in most browsers by default, but some infoboxs are designed to left-align them as a design choice. Your edit overrides that at a cell level, and so is changing those appearances. For example, the Template:Infobox example template should show all cells left-aligned, but is not as a result of your edit. -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been much discussion of which bits of style are done where. The overall change to the .infobox is this diff. Which exactly are the infoboxes that choose left-aligned text in table headers? --Gareth Hughes 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly not (the extra big gaps are line breaks...) ed g2s • talk 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why has this only become a problem now? --Gareth Hughes 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, someone put a line break in template:if defined. That's a relief: I couldn't figure out how the CSS was affecting it. Sorry to bark up the wrong tree. --Gareth Hughes 22:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The real botch happened here. What the hell is this bot doing on templates...? I see these kind of noinclude placement errors again and again. Sadly I did not have Template:If defined on my radar (it is now). But I would propose to simply protect it. There is just no need to treat that "the usual wiki way" and leave it open for Tom, Dick and Harry. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I ve notified the bot owner. See also User talk:AllyUnion#Bad edit of NekoDaemon on Template:If defined. We have at the moment all language articles in Category:If templates (as a transient state). --Adrian Buehlmann 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Book Of THoTH

The Book of THoTH is highly relevant to anyone wanting to find out more about Thoth, The entire site is based on the ethos of "The Book of THoTH" brought into the modern day. In addition there is a huge amount of material regarding Thoth.

What right do you have to claim this is non relevant? Who appointed you sole arbiter of knowledge? When there's a link for a mortician who has simply adopted the name? This is not self promotion, it is there to allow people to find information, and lots of it.

Repeat this action and the existing complaint will include yourself.

http:--remove--//www.book-of-thoth.com/faq-1-What+is+%27The+Book+of+THoTH%27+%3F.html http:--remove--//www.book-of-thoth.com/sections-listarticles-41.html

Wikipedia is not a collection of links: it is an encyclopaedia. External links are expected to come up to an encyclopaedic standard: these don't. It is very easy for anyone to add links to Wikipedia, so we have to weed out the inappropriate ones every so often. Please make go ahead and make your complaint. --Gareth Hughes 00:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Don't worry I will, I can think of no better description of my site than an encyclopedia. I'll make the complaint here and in the printed media if necessary. THoTH 00:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I can think of better descriptions. Will you stop with your empty threats? --Gareth Hughes 00:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your obnoxious manner has been reported too, the threats weren't empty I've filed the complaint.

[edit] Another edit of yours

I'm sorry, but administrator or not, I think you're abusing your role and censoring what is a massive source of information based upon the ethos of "The book of thoth". I find it amusing that an occultist like Crowley can hijack the title and legend for himself, yet the same principle is removed because you consider it to be spam which I find highly offensive given the time and effort that has gone into this website.

Administrator or not, the role of Wiki is to allow people to research and locate information of their choice, your self appointed censorship based on what I'd like to know cuts across that notion, and restricts to the knowledge you consider to be valuable. It's supposed to be a reference site and my one link here allows people another avenue of exploration.

My site contains a vast amount of material, including ancient history including Thoth, and the Egyptian lore. Whether you find it's style palatable should not be of any importance, you should allow others all avenues of research.

As stated in my other message to you I will make a formal complaint if this action is repeated.

Please make your complaint and stop bothering me with nonsense about your website. --Gareth Hughes 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syriac Language

Hi their, I read that you are studying the language. I don't read it, but I speak it fluently, and if you have any questions, please do ask :) Chaldean 06:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mostly work with written Classical Syriac, but I also speak it: there is a growing number of speakers of classical language. I know a little Turoyo and some Urmezhnaya. I am guessing by your handle that you speak the Alqoshi standard dialect, am I correct? If so, do you know any Urmezhnaya, or are you able to say what are the major differeneces with that dialect? --Gareth Hughes 10:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi their Gareth, no I speak the Koy Sinjak dialect. This Chaldean dialect has some kurdish effect to it. But Gareth, you have to remember that this dialects are VERY similar. I mean, these dialects are closer to each other then American/British English are to each other. We understand and can communicate with each other perfectly. My boss is Alqoshi, my co-worker is Zakhonaya, I have a friend that is was raised in Baghdad, and we honestly don't see that big of a difference when we speak with each other. Chaldean 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in the article about Koy Sanjak Surat. As Senaya is quite a different, peripheral variety of NENA, but has some similarity with the Koy Sanjaq dialect, I wrote about the theory that Chaldeans from Sanandaj may have settled there. For Iraqi Chaldeans, Alqoshi is the standard dialect, and has influenced the other dialects. I've seen quite a lot of the work that has been done in Israel with Aramaic-speaking Jews. Many of the older generation used to live side-by-side with Aramaic-speaking Christians throughout Iraq, Iran and Turkey. It is interesting to note the similarities and differences between the varieties: in some places Jewish and Christian Aramaic were so different that neighbours of different religions would not be able to understand one another, in other places, the languages were almost identical. --Gareth Hughes 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of former iraqi Jews speaking almost the same. Actually, last year, we had a Israeli doctor stayed over our house, so that he can interview and research the koy sinjak dialect. He is part of a team that is doing this big project (a website) that is trying to basically have an archive of the language, since no jews live in Iraq, and the language will not be spoken by many jews in the few generations to come. It will be nice, he said he will have audio clips of almost every word. The theory you brought up is an interesting one, but I have never heard of such thing. My grandfather was born in the 1910s, and they immigrated from turkey/iraq border to koy sinjak during the massacre by the turks/kurds. An article was written in a magazine in 1993 by one of my relatives from Koy, that talks about Armota and Koy here [[7]] (its arabic)
Your best resource about anything about Koy, be it the language or anything, is www.ankawa.com ::::You can freely ask people from Koy or Armota questions (again arabic). So do you speak any soureth language? How are you learning it? Chaldean 19:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gesture of appreciation

image:Rosetta_Barnstar.png
This Rosetta Barnstar is awarded in recognition of your work in helping build the world's best free collection of shared community knowlegde about languages — which are, after all, one of the best windows into the miracle of our diverse but shared humanity. ntennis 12:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts with language pages, the language template, and your helpful and immediate responses to queries. Hope u know that ur appreciated! Sorry I couldn't get it to look prettier (padding?) but it's the thought that counts, eh? Cheers, ntennis 12:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much. I think the effect of the crammed-together text is quite Rosetta-ish. This is a very nice gesture. Thank you. --Gareth Hughes 13:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assyrians

Hi! Gareth. Ive noticed that Pylambert is trying to delete all the connections between the Assyrians today and Ancient Assyrians. I think that is wrong since there is a connection between them and we also have other problems. Ive added Turoyo into the Assyrian People article but Pylambert keeps reverting it, but I think Turoyo should be there since some Assyrians talk Turoyo. I also wanted to talk about the template and the new Syriac stuff that has been going on. Syriacs = Suryoye if im right? and Syriac cant representive all the people although its a very good idea and perhaps it could but as I see it Syriacs are those who speak Turoyo and some of them see themselves as Syriacs/Arameans and others as Assyrians. Suroyo/Suraya is the name im searching for to describe the people. But I was hopening you could help me with Pylambert since I dont want another edit war and you and I are familiar with that =). Calling the Assyrians today not the ancient Assyrians is a big insult to me and all of us. We've lived under opression and persecution for our ethnicity and religion and still people attack us like this. It makes me very sad indeed. Thanks for listening.--Yohanun 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Its embarrasing and an inslut and I second Yohanun Chaldean 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you in part, and I shall speak to this user. The connexion between Ancient Assyrians and Modern Assyrians is always going to be fraught with difficulty because nationality is not a scientifically provable fact. I believe that it would be wrong to state categorically that there is or is not a connexion. You find this insulting, and so would I, but remember that this is an encyclopaedia, and that the point of view of any one of us cannot dictate it. I tried to get some discussion started on ethnic labels like Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans, as I believe that they are the same people. I have met many from Tur `Abdin who define themselves as Assyrian. I have met a Senaya from Tehran who dislikes being called Chaldean and prefers Senaya or Suryaya. The picture is mixed and confused. Wikipedia is here to explain Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac culture, religion and language, but not to promote it. We have to be careful when writing about things we love because it so hard to stay neutral. I ask you to keep a cool head, and we'll work this out. --Gareth Hughes 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Garth, you might be interested in this new read about aramaic [[8]] Chaldean 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The funny thing is they have not once suggested what else can we be? What are we if where not Assyrians? Cause we don't look like arabs (we completly stand out because of our light complection,) we are not Kurdish because kurdish ethinicity is not a homogenious ethnicity (Rather a mixture of everything in the region; be it persian, turkish, assyrian, arab.) So then what are we if were not Assyrian? Just plain old white people that found themselfs in the middle of the arab world? Chaldean 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I think we can improve the Assyrian people article among other articles. Yes, our people are confused and they would need a lession or two, but one thing we call agree with is that we all are Suroye/Suraye. Its very hard to stay neutral since this is a very huge insult for all Assyrians, but I will stay cool since thats what you want me to do.God bless you Gareth, there arent a lot of people like you left in this cold world. --Yohanun 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As you seem interested on the Assyrian people article, please have a look at Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics. I'm also trying to add in several articles (Assyrians in Iran, Assyrians in the Caucasus, Turkish Cypriot) a Bibliography section with scientific articles and books, so the main users of wikipedia (I mean those who only read it, and don't add or change anything) will have something more to read, even if it is "only" paper and not on the sacralised internet ;-) --Pylambert 19:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nøma limba

Hi. For Barzani it says Lishana Janan with the J apparently a daleþ-yoð...ok, I can accept that...but the Hulaula article says that יהודיותא is supposedly pronounced "Hula'ula". No warping of יהודיותא can possibly result in "Hula'ula"...it looks like "Yahudyuta" or "Yahudjuθa" or something else. Jedætta? Tomertalk 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the standard Aramaic spelling. Although there isn't a standard for written Hulaula, it is sometimes written הולאולא Hûla'ûlā: the interdental fricatives have become laterals, and syllable initial y is ellided. That's basically how the Aramaic word for 'Jewish' can end up looking so odd in Hulaula. Perhaps I should have explained that. --Gareth Hughes 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't hate Muslims.

It's just political. And as far as Khoikhoi goes. He keeps maliciously undoing anything I contribute to. He keeps erasing the map off the Chaldeans article. He keeps making an Assyro-Chaldeans article when it's supposed to redirect to Chaldeans. Chaldean encompasses Assyro-Chaldean. It's on the damn article.

Sargonious, political can, nd often does, include hate. How does calling someone a dumbass resolve a conflict? You have had a previous warning about civility. Your approach is hurting any credit that Assyrians and Chaldeans might have: learn to discuss things civilly. --Gareth Hughes 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Thing

Hi Gareth, looks like I accidentally closed the above AfD about twenty minutes after you already did so (I have self-reverted my closing). I was originally going to close it as Keep Good Thing & Bad Thing, then Merge and redirect Right Thing to Good Thing and Wrong Thing to Bad Thing. How and where you do the merging is your perogative, but the consensus in the AfD appeared to be to Keep Good Thing and Bad Thing.

While writing this note to you, I decided to bring this up to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'd appreciate any feedback you have there (give me a couple of minutes to write it out). Thanks. --Deathphoenix 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, you can find it here. I just wanted to point out that you made a difficult decision on a tough AfD. Thanks, Deathphoenix 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think merging was the consensus, but it's not that clear. The question of merging to two or one article is the real difficulty. I just took the plunge and made it one. Merging to two articles might be a better solution. --Gareth Hughes 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think merging into two is better, though I guess it's up to the DRV now. Kudos for taking on a tough AfD. :-) --Deathphoenix 17:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made it two. I have been gathering citations to expand Good Thing for some months now; it would be quite odd if the "Good Thing" section of Bad Thing were larger than the rest of the article combined. :-) --TreyHarris 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

I guess you meant to welcome Olawunmi2 on his talk, and not on his user page? — mark ✎ 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Well spotted, Mark. I've moved the welcome onto his talk page now. --Gareth Hughes 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language Template

So how can I start adding alphabets? You can always write none or even 2, as in Serbo-Croatian. It would greatly enhance the articles. Ksenon 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about this at template talk:language#script / alphabet, and the suggestion goes back further. I feel that a blank box would be the best solution, but others have suggested using an array. In all probability, the new row will be an optional call. There is also some debate how best to organise this parameter: in the case of multiple writing systems, combination writing systems, and variants. --Gareth Hughes 16:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So can you tell me, for example, how to add "Alphabet" in the template in Gothic language? I dont know how these (non-meta?) templates work. Ksenon 18:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean: it hasn't been built yet. --Gareth Hughes 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for blocking this guy and his bodyguard! =D --COA 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanized Assyrian Alphabet

I'm not going to actually use it on anything. It'll stay on my user talk page. Works pretty nicely though. Eh?

Yes, it looks similar to a Latin alphabet used in Sweden for Turoyo, but that uses 'C' for `ayn! --Gareth Hughes 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
There was already a Latin alphabet used for Assyrian in the Russian Caucasus in the beginning of the XXth century. --Pylambert 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanized Assyrian, check out these examples.

eg. Marun Jšui Mšjxa mere:

O d'la etle xţjta maxe/patel kepa qamaja.

Sj maxa Catana!

Alahj, Alahj, La ma šabaqt anj?

Translation:

eg. Our Lord Jesus Christ said:

The one who is without sin throw the first rock.

Get out of here Satan!

My God, My God, why have you deserted me?

[edit] Complaint about User:Pylambert

Hello Garzo,

User:Pylambert has an annoying habit of disclosing information about me on Wikipedia (and reverting my edits removing that info), groundlessly labelling people including myself as nationalists and activists, and indiscriminately judging all edits he disagrees with as politically motivated. Can you talk some sense into this guy?

He thinks he can get away with it just because I sent him an email or two. Isn't this outrageous? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the whole debate has become overheated. I don't think that Pylambert is intentionally trying to annoy you. He mentioned your country of residence, and you removed it. I don't think that this constitutes a personal attack or the revelation of sensative personal information. To be fair, he may have felt that the disclosure of this information was not a 'big deal'. However, removing or altering parts of talk-page post is something that we should not get into the habit of doing. Would you like me to talk with him? --Gareth Hughes 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I told him that I feel it's not right to disclose that sort of information (any sort of information, rather, unless I'd threatened him by email or something like that, which is not the case of course), and apparently he doesn't care about that, since he reverts my deletions. Next thing he writes down my name when the temperatures rise again. We should be able to contribute to Wikipedia anonymously, shouldn't we?
I know it's not very nice to change someone else's edits to talk pages, and generally I don't do that (only an occasional typo, or a signature), but I thought it to be the worst of two evils in this case.
My main concern is that he questions my intentions by calling me a nationalist and an activist, without any reason. I've tried to explain him that I do not appreciate that kind of behaviour. I try to stay patient, but find his belittling remarks a disgrace to Wikipedia, and not very motivating. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benne

I was actually excersizing civility. I didn't mean what I said as an insult. I was alluding to Baathist policy which he's applying to his Syriacism.


King Legit

Then my understanding of the Arabic particles ya and inta must be quite different. --Gareth Hughes 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Can you please move Syriac Christian people back to Syriacs? There was no prior discussion to this. --Khoikhoi 06:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think there's a fair case for moving it back. All Syriacs are at least nominally Christian (it's part of the culture), so it seems unnecessary to use this title. --Gareth Hughes 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK well if you seem to think that's reduntant then why not move Assyrian people to Assyrians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

I said that Christian was not necessary for disambiguation: in some cases, people is a good disambiguation for thse articles. Do you know how to sign your name? --Gareth Hughes 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I always forget to do it though. Alright I guess I'm going to have to conform to less unilateral actions. I hope Bush can forgive me for compromising with Cyber Terrorists. haha j/k but nevertheless I'll chill out with some of the stuff I do but sometimes when people erase important articles and write ignorance it gets on my nerves. I would like to know why the Assyrian flag was taken off the page for Assyrian people. I hate having to fix things then have someone just erase them again. It is universaly accepted as the Assyrian flag. If you watch John Pauls funeral you will see someone waving the flag. Not that it would prove what I just said but I mean the flag is on almost all Assyrian organizations. I don't want to say all because I don't know all of them.

King Legit

[edit] Template

Hi again. So could you add something like "|writing system = alphabetic--Gothic" to the Gothic language template? I will learn how to do it by looking at the edit history and implement it throughout the language project. Thx. Ksenon 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. You can now see the implementation discussion at template talk:infobox Language#Writing system. I'll edit Gothic language (edit · talk · links · history · watch) along those lines. --Gareth Hughes 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with username

I moved my user name to King Legit but it still says sargonious everywhere. I don't want that name anymore. I wish not to have any references to my real name.

King Legit

Yes, I've just noticed that. Like other pages, you can move your user page to a new space, but that doesn't change your account. Even though you've moved User:Sargonious to User:King Legit, you are still logged in as the former. I'll see what I can work out for you. --Gareth Hughes 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akkadian words in Syriac

http://www.aina.org/articles/akkadianwords.html http://www.christiansofiraq.com/assyria1.html

This is a comprehensive Akkadian lexicon used in modern Syriac.

Most of the AINA article is factually correct. However, the author is obviously not a Semitics scholar. The statement that "the two language shared similarities", could be misleading. The statement "It should be noted that while the ancient Assyrian words universaly ended in U the contemporary Eastern Assyrian words in their basic form end in A" is just plainly ignorant of the development of case endings in Akkadian (the U) and the Aramaic noun states (the A). The list of words is absolutely useless: the compiler does not realise the difference between common inheritence and loanwords. Therefore, to display this list as evidence that a substantial portion of Syriac vocabulary is really Akkadian is deceptive: it just does not work like that. As far as I can see, the 'Christians of Iraq' page is just a reworking of the same stuff with a few additions. Basically, these sites just use a poor scientific methodology, which is far too common in amateur comparative linguistics. Don't believe everything you read. --Gareth Hughes 23:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. English uses a lot of Latin words via French and lots of Greek via Latin through French. etc.

What about the whole sprauchlbund thing about Sumerian and Akkadian. You don't think that could have occured with Akkadian and Aramaic?

Yes, Sprachbund could describe the situation of Sumerian-Akkadian and Akkadian-Aramaic. However, the two relationships were completely different: Sumerian is totally different from Akkadian, whereas Akkadian and Aramaic are both Semitic languages. It is because they are both Semitic languages that you have to be careful: some words may look/sound like, but are equally descended from Proto-Semitic. For example, ቃለ qalä is 'word' in Ge'ez; it sounds quite like ܩܠܐ qālâ 'voice' in Syriac. The only link between the two is that they are both Semitic languages. Many of the words on the list have this sort of relationship: they are not loanwords. There are some loanwords, but they are mostly restricted to things that royal scribes would write about. --Gareth Hughes 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew that Sumerian was a language isolate like Basque and the old Elamite language. I can't stand how Turks try to claim them as their anscestors because both of their languages are agglutinative. User:Inanna

King Legit

Hm, people do seem to want to claim anything to suggest that they are more special than others. --Gareth Hughes 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait til the day there's one (good) world government and racial/ethnic classifications are deemed irrelevant. Then everyone can lay claim to all ancient people.King Legit

[edit] Syriacs template box

Its content is outrageously propagandist (it points towards a few Zionist-like anti-Arab Middle Eastern Christian activists, mostly in North America, who are trying to build the concept of a non-Arab Christian minority and to convince the U.S. authorities to help them create a sort of non-Arab Christian Israel in the Middle East, preferably in Lebanon) as there is no serious scientific reference:

  • that uses "Syriacs" as a designation for present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians (Assyrians, or "Assyrian people"), as you surely know "Syriacs" is only used in English and in French for the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic churches
  • that includes in the category of present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians followers of the Maronite Catholic Church, of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and of the Antiochian Orthodox Church
  • that lists Cypriot Maronite Arabic and Lebanese Arabic among the languages of the present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians


Obviously, Benne coined the term Syriacs himself and wrongfully tries to impose it on wikipedia and on all articles pertaining to Assyrians. This is not acceptable. You probably noted that I always try to put references for statistics (see Assyrian diaspora e.g.) and for other contributions, or even a larger bibliography when possible (Assyrians in Iran e.g.). Benne on the contrary seems to be getting information directly from some voices (like Joan of Arc) and neglects to sustain his modifications and creations by any scientific reference. He even misuses existing references, see at Template talk:Syriac#Sure there is. I hope you'll intervene as an administrator now, it's high time. --Pylambert 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Many do identify as Suryāye. It is no coinage, but a term that has been extant for centuries. There are some Maronites and Levantine Melkites (both Catholic and Orthodox) who see themselves as an integral part of the Antiochene Christian tradition and ethnic Aramaeans. Now there are different nationalist ideologies among Maronites about who they are, but this is not an unreasonable one considering the historical importance of la langue syriaque to the sect. I don't believe that Benne is being awkward here. The problem is that you are both approach a very complicated Middle-Eastern identity crisis from different directions. I know that Benne has met with people who identify very clearly as Suryāye and see the Athurāye label as the political upstart. I would just love to see two people agree on something here, but it will take hard work rather than me pressing my shiney admin buttons. --Gareth Hughes 01:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Again, Pylambert shows a tendency to judge a little too hastily. The Syriacs article was created before I even knew about Wikipedia, and its content was not fundamentally different from what it is now. The only disputed additions were the Maronites and (even more so) the Melkites, even though I recently read in a history book about Syria that they, too, are considered to belong to the "original Syrians". It is however undisputed among scholars that the people who now in majority call themselves Assyrians and/or Chaldeans (the "East Syrians") are part of this group.
And once again, Pylambert is rather suggestive in his remarks, trying to evade the real question, so it seems. So-called plans for the foundation of a "Zionist-like" Christian state in the Middle East have nothing to do with trying to find a way to refer to the Suryoye/Suryāye people who have for centuries been referred to as "Syrians". --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syriac genocide

I wanted to know if you could close the move-poll: it has ben opened 5 February, and polls are generally closed after 5 or 7 days. The result is to change the name to once again Assyrian genocide, since there were 7 votes for the move, 1 against (Benne) and 1 neutral (me). Since you're an administrator, could yyou do the move? (only an admin. can do it) Cheers. Aldux 16:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note on the talk page asking for objections, just to make sure. --Gareth Hughes 16:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Something ought to be done too for the pages Syriacs and Chaldeans, which are clearly redundant with Assyrian people, and also less accurate as several people contributed e.g. to give sourced estimates for several countries, reducing the fantasy numbers of 5,000,000 to a much more reasonable 1,500,000. --Pylambert 22:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have thought for a while that we would be better served by one good article on the shared and diverse traits of this ethnic identity. At the moment, Assyrian people is the article in best shape. However, there are plenty of Syriacs and Chaldeans, whom others might label Assyrian, who reject this label. This is the reason why the recent cultural surveys in Iraq employed the term Assyro-Chaldean. I would like to see one good article, and that well might be Assyrian people. However, there has to be a meeting of hearts and minds over this. The cultural traits of Syriac language and Syriac Christianity should stay under those labels, as that is how they are known to scholarship (in fact the latter is reliant on the former). There could be a strong case made from this line that the ethnic identifier should be Syriac too. However, most of those who feel most strongly about a unified identity choose the label Assyrian. --Gareth Hughes 22:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christoph Luxenberg

Sorry , but I do not agree with the academic mumbo jumbo approach. The article should to state facts, in plain english. If you find POV statements then you are free to challenge them / edit them accordingly. The "we should be careful.." thing you keep repeating is bordeline an expression self censorship which should have no place in an encyclopedia --CltFn 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaldea - Chaldeans

It will be interresting to see how long you edit will stay up as there seems to be a drive to elliminate any connection between the two.

The question though is if the two articles should be merged in harmony with the wiki-principles of not having POV-Fork articles,

Agathoclea 13:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can all argue that they are not related to ancient Chaldeans, but no one can prove it either way. The fact is that there is a substantial group of people who call themselves Chaldean, and I believe it's necessary to say so. However, I would prefer to have a single article about the modern Syriac-speaking people referenced from articles about Chaldea and Assyria rather than merged in with them separately. --Gareth Hughes 13:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
All these (in my opinion unfounded) claims for some kind of ancestry links with ancient Assyrians, Chaldeans, Arameans, Babylonians etc. should be dealt with in a single section of the Assyrian people article, with another section about where do the present designation problem stems from. And it should be clearly mentioned that this is no exception in the region, the whole thing must be replaced in a broader context, with Kurds claiming to be the inheritors of the ancient Medes, some Israeli Druzes the descendants of prophet Jethro's (Nabi Shuaib) tribe, modern Greeks of ancient Greeks (the section Greeks#Modern and ancient Greeks seems to me not accurate, it's rather the Greek nationalist vision of it), modern Albanians and ancient Illyrians, modern Lebanese and Phoenicians, modern Maronites and Mardaites, modern Jews and ancient Jews (Chinese Jews and Ethiopian Jews don't share many phenotypes with Polish Jews, who in their turn are not much akin to Persian Jews) etc. There is another comparison as to the designation question, the South Slavic one: there is a linguistic continuum from Croatia to Bulgaria, and it would have been possible to build a common Ausbausprache (or a Dachsprache) for all South Slavs under a common nation-building denomination, but instead various romantic nationalists in the XIXth century and less romantic and more sanguinary ones in the XXth, plus separate nation-builders, developed separate Ausbausprache (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian), there was even an attempt to foster a separate Dalmatian nationalism. Actually, I wouldn't mind if the modern Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramaean people article would have a more neutral title related to both the language (Neo-Aramaic) and the religion (Christian): Neo-Aramaic Christian speakers for instance, or something like it. The problem of most people who intervene on the Wikipedia articles over all these "Neo-Aramaic Christian speakers" is that they're very narrowly focused on that topics, they don't try to develop parallels with other similar situations, or to replace the problematics into the Ottoman and post-Ottoman millet system and its evolution alongside the national revival in the XIXth and XXth centuries. --Pylambert 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, I think a title like Neo-Aramaic people might be worth considering. It is, however, a neologism, and we shouldn't be in the habit of making up titles for difficult definitions (it's all rather unencyclopaedic). The claims of these groups to be descended from their ancient people cannot be proved, but neither can they be disproved. Statistically, many of the descendents of ancient Assyrians should now be fully arabised Muslims, but many may not be. The biological aspect of ethnicity is interesting, but, in reality, ethnicity is as much about self-designation as anything else. If an Assyrian has the given name Sargon and takes pride in a Ninevite heritage, then that is part of his culture. Whether what his culture claims is true or not is something else, it is still part of his culture. In the same way, many more US citizens claim descent from the Pilgrim Fathers than is statistically possible, but that heritage is culturally important to them. --Gareth Hughes 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly a difficult issue to arbitrate between tempers and encyclopeanism (is there such a word?). But maybe get the people who have the autrian/german problem work out the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramaean problem and let the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramaeans work out the austrian/german problem ;-) This would put all into perspective. Agathoclea 18:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbil

Hello garzo Thanks for correcting my spelling on Arbil, I never seem to hit the right keys anyway,

your range of languages is really impressive !

see you around the wikispaces

--Vindheim 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Arbil (edit · talk · links · history · watch) is an article that I've been keeping an eye on for a while, and smoothing out the creases seemed to be the easiest thing to do. However, I do believe the spelling parallell is an improvement. --Gareth Hughes 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24.94.226.127

Hi Garzo. 24.94.226.127 was blocked for 24 hours for vandalizing the Desalination article awhile back. After the user was unblocked, he/she vandalized my user page and the Battle of the Zab page. I really recommend blocking this user indefinitely as he/she has no good contributions. Next time I'll remember to not give out my user name when warning vandals. ;) --Khoikhoi 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't generally put indefinite blocks on IP addresses as they are often recycled to different users within a certain range. Adding your signature to vandalism warnings is good practice even if it does mean that you occassionally get some unwanted feedback (it's never difficult to clean up). --Gareth Hughes 02:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it's just that I hope this guy doesn't say crap to me again, as he has in the past. --Khoikhoi 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Why was I blocked by you?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.87.121.161 Never been to the Malta page in my life, and i checked its history just then and there are no edits by that IP address! It also says I vandalised "Peter James" - I have been blocked because of it. I do not know who that is, but this time my IP address did in fact appear in the history. I am not responsible for that edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.121.161 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 February 2006.

You were not blocked by me: please read your block log for the details. The block was applied on 30 November, was limited to twenty-four hours, and has now expired. The IP address you are using vandalised the Malta (edit · talk · links · history · watch) article on 28 November 2005 (see this informative edit). As you seem to be using a computer registered at Prince Alfred College, South Australia, it is likely that others are using the network to vandalise Wikipedia. You could avoid some of the hassle of being lumped with other vandals by creating an account. --Gareth Hughes 10:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syriacs

Actually in Syriac. When you tell someone: Ati l'et Suraya. It means: you're not Christian. Or if you say: Suray ewit? It means: are you Christian? So in the language when ask someone that, you're not asking them if they're Syriac speaking, but if they're Christian. Here's what I've learned through Assyrian class in Church. Back when people were just converting from paganism to Christianity to distinguish Christians from Pagans (whom they were living amongst) they went from calling themselves Aramaye to Suraye. Aramaye were Kappore (pagan) and Suraye were Mshehaye (Chrisitan).

Basically in early Middle Eastern christianity Aramean was used interchangebly with pagan as Syriac was with Christian and then later with Islam, Arab also was used interchangebly with Mulsim.

King Legit

Yes, the word Syria was reborowed from Greek, where it was used as an alternative to Aram. There are a couple of ideas as to where the Greek word comes from, perhaps it's from Assyria. Anyway, as Greek language was important in the early church, Christian Aramaeans chose to use the word Syriac to describe themselves instead of Aramaean. That is the cultural context, but a dictionary wouldn't say that suryāyā means Christian, at most it might be fair to say that it means Christian Aramaean. Identity is difficult. Many Aramaeans must hve converted to Islam and became known as Arab, whilest many Arabs may have resisted and remained Christian and become known as Syriacs or whatever. --Gareth Hughes 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I was once asked (by a Turkish woman) "did you become a Turk ?", the person meant "did you convert to islam ?" ! I guess that likewise in the mind of most Greeks, a "Greek" is a Greek Orthodox Christian (notwithstanding the existence of a Turkish and Pomak Muslim community)... So I'm not suprised of the Suray ewit?. --Pylambert 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I modified the Assyrian people article so as to include Syriacs and Chaldeans, and these two pages are now just redirect pages towards Assyrian people, as well as Assyro-Chaldeans and (new) redirect pages Syriacs people, Chaldean people and Chaldo-Assyrian people. I guess the "Syriacs" activist will try to revert all the modifications, but this time the Assyrian people article includes enough elements to let lay people understand the nature of the problem. The Syriacs box is now proposed for deletion here. --Pylambert 11:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That is what I'm complaining about. Now I've been slammed for redirects before. This guy is redirecting the Chaldeans page to Assyrians and also rewording the Assyrian page to how he sees it fit. I made referrences to population numbers and he keeps reverting them stating that the website is biased. However it is a non-Assyrian website and it's a world wide orginazition UNPO. Please check into this. King Legit


whilest many Arabs may have resisted and remained Christian and become known as Syriacs or whatever. Garth this statement was so hurtful reading it :( Chaldean 06:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia has now officially been taken over by Assyrianists

Sanctioning the assyrianisation of the articles concerning the Suryoye/Suryāye people means the end of Wikipedia's neutrality. It has now officially been taken over by Assyrianists.

You stated yourself that Suryoye was the name used to refer to Christianised Aramaeans, and that Syrians is the English name which has been applied to the people for many centuries. For reasons undocumented and unjustified, Assyrians now appears to be the name to refer to those people, whereas you said a strong case could be made for Syriacs as a modern equivalent. But no, the stronger feelings have won, rather than common sense, or a strive for reaching consensus.

Only a few days ago, Pylambert even said he didn't care about the adjective Assyrian that much, and that a modern coinage like Neo-Aramaic Christians might also be considered. I was very surprised by this statement, because he (unrightfully, as both Chaldean and yourself has pointed out) at one point accuses me of coining new terms, whereas he now comes up with a self-invented name himself. I was slightly hopeful we could reach some sort of compromise out of this saddening mess, but apparently, there's nothing as volatile as the human mind, since now all of a sudden he changed the whole thing back, while no consensus has been reached whatsoever.

It's a shame, Gareth, that you let it happen, both as an administrator and as someone who studies the Suryoye and their languages. I not only consider this attitude a deathblow to the NPOV character of Wikipedia, but I also consider it a betrayal towards such a large part of a people who are so hopelessly and so saddeningly divided. This may all sound a little dramatic, but this is how I feel. Once again, I strongly urge you to abide by the Wikipedia rules (how I see it: do your utmost best to reach consensus, don't succumb to pressure from nationalists), and do justice to history, and to the people who have suffered from that history so much already. B-hubbo, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is altogether very unfortunate - I got drawn into this when Pylambert took out the Chaldan chategory from ancient Chaldean characters - but having one article for what are one people, despite the many possible names that could be given to them is better than having 4 or 5 POV-forks. Work out together, what is scientificaly acceptable, when there are different - referencable - opinons be man enaugh to allow the other view as well in that article. Once you gotten that far it might not be so difficult anymore to find a common consensus for the main article name with the other options as redirect. Allow that time to work things out. And I don't just mean Benne. I mean all of the ones involved.
Another thing to consider is the way things are categorized. Have a look at Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories where it says "Ideally , an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are many occasions when the ideal can and should be ignored.". Personally I think some of the categories could be unwound but have a read of that page for some examples of when the rule needs not to apply. Again a consensus would be very important. It would also be an option to untangle the modern people from the ancient people without implying either a connection or denying it. Agathoclea 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. While reading the Assyrian people article, it becomes more and more clear that Pylambert is the real activist here, an anti-clerical and anti-Christian one, that is. It is downright nonsense that it was under the leadership of the Syriac Orthodox Church that the name Aramaeans re-appeared on stage. In fact, awareness of the Aramaean heritage of the Syriacs has been extant throughout the history of both the West Syrian and the East Syrian churches. Curiously, in 1981, the Syriac Orthodox Synod stated that the people were to be called neither Aramaeans nor Assyrians, but Suryoye. (If I'm informed correctly, this verdict was recalled one year later.) Besides, what influence could the Syriac Orthodox clergy possibly have on Syriac Protestant groups like the Aramäische freie Christengemeinde? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Read Benne's comments on my talk page and go to history to see him delete his own comments about not being from the middle east. King Legit

What's your point? That wasn't something I was trying to hide, I just decided there was no point talking to you. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Shlomo wabhubo lkul! I've wanted to see these article pulled together for some time. I did not like the way Pylambert did it, but I do not believe he has made the situation worse. I am concerned about Assyrian nationalism, and do not wish to see the article become a piece of Assyrian propaganda. However, the text of the article doesn't read too badly, and is quite good. Of course, there are a good few little phrases that need to be worked through. The major issue, I suspect, is the title of the aticle. Even if the article clearly states it is about other designations too, the title will be bolder. This is why I added prominent mentions of other labels at the top of the article and infobox. I believe that we can work on finding an acceptable title on the talk page, but think it is now better to have one article rather than several. In some way, we're all a little blinkered: our knowledge is partial. I have worked with Syriac Orthodox in Syria and Turkey, and I suspect Pylambert has worked with Assyrians and 'Aramaean' Syriacs (yes, clerical-led anti-Assyrianism) in France. Assyrians themselves may know little more than the suburbs of Stockholm or Detroit. In Iraq self-designation has become even more vital, and 'Assyrianism' is a popular scheme for unity. It would be useful if users involved in discussing this issue could talk more objectively about it: let's not make this personal. As we have been discussing, I have seen great aptitude for compromise from all sides. However, we have to work for that. — Gareth Hughes 20:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It is nice to see this awakening amongst wikipedians, I would like to say that we wouldnt blaim the "assyrian" wing, but rather the individuals who have personal agendas. Again I hope that Benne and others who are giving other views than the assyrian have their saying. Because it is very vital that we here in wikipedia try to show all sides and all -ism that exists amongst the Suryoyo people.
Michael 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
when I wrote the above text I did not se that you have changed syriacs->assyrian people, how can someone just do that? I dont know who is the admin but the one shouldnt be an admin because he/she doesnt have a clue about assyrians/syriacs. I willrepete it Assyrian wing is only one of many political wings, there are aramean, chaldean, maronites, melkite, syriac, and others, all these make claims of belnonging to one other. and some claim to be seperate. Now again It is wrong for wikipedia to force one ideology upon all the other designations. if you cant understand this, then the least you can do is to revert the articles so that syriacs is seperated from assryain people. because it doesnt belong there, and maby they could be connected through other articles like for example the suryoyo article. what I trying to say here is that wikipedia isnt a platform for nationalists. Michael 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The topic of this is hilarious and sad at the same time. Benne, you were getting away with posting things with your views and interests and earised REALITY all at once. I am very happy I have joined Wikipedia and working with the Assyrian project and CORRECTING things that have been very false. This is not a threat, but it is only a matter of time more of our people will join Wikipedia and clearfy this topic more, as these articles are still not in a good shape as of right now. Chaldean 06:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
One more thing In fact, awareness of the Aramaean heritage of the Syriacs has been extant throughout the history of both the West Syrian and the East Syrian churches. This is not true,Chaldean 06:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am getting totally fed up with all of your whining. Can I remind you all of neutral point of view, and that you should all stop trying to make these articles fit your own points of view? — Gareth Hughes 11:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough is Enough

I don't see what the big deal is. I do urge major reconstruction of the Assyrian page. It should include full explanations of why Assyrians refer to themselves as Chaldeans, Syriacs, or Arameans. The obvious reason is religious affiliation but a little more detail would be nice.King Legit

Inflamatory is my nature. I appologize for that. I'm good at getting people riled up which I feel is a good thing because it makes everyone think on their feet and exposes those who can't.

Sentiments of war and hate just aren't helping you, your cause or anyone. — Gareth Hughes 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate anyone, nor do I embrace war. I just feel sometimes you need to get people's attention to get your point accross.12.15.7.70

[edit] Picture

It has gotten to a point where I have to share my emails with you? Please ser, I deserve more respect then that.

Dear -- On 02-12-2006 you requested permission to use the AINA content at http://www.aina.org/maps/ AINA grants you permission to use the above content. Please insure that AINA is properly cited. For both web and paper reprints, the minimal citation is AINA or Assyrian International News Agency, along with a hyperlink to http://www.aina.org or to the URL of the reprinted AINA content. For web reprints, a good location for the citation is in the text of the hyperlink. For paper reprints, the hyperlink should be placed in parentheses following the citation. Additional citation text (such as the title) can be specified at your discretion. Sincerely, Peter BetBasoo Chaldean 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, AINA's copyright notice can be found here. You tagged the image with a GFDL licence. You will need to check if this licence is compatible with the AINA terms. If your permission is granted by e-mail, then, yes, you do have to share this with Wikipedia. The entire text of the e-mail should be posted on the Image:Tur Abdin.jpg page. If you fail to tag the image properly and give full details of source and permission, the image will be deleted. Of course, you realise that the image cannot be used by Wikipedia if this information is lacking. — Gareth Hughes 19:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Ignorance (Assyrian talk page)

Do you think that was a good explanation of everything? I tried not to be offensive.King Legit

Dividing up the different words — this is the name of the language, this is the name of the church, this is the name of the people, this is the name of the region — is all very neat and tidy. However, in reality, things are not that simple. The various different names have been used to describe all these things, and very few people actually divide up their meanings in the way you suggested. Assyriology is the specific study of ancient Assyria (often extended to Babylon and Sumer), not the entire history of the Near East. My department is called Syriac Studies, and I only see the Assyriologists in the canteen. The ethnic mix is true — it's generally believed that Abgar was an Arab Christian. So, I see it as a bit of a potted history: it's generally true, but an oversimplification. Unfortunately, the history of the Middle East is not simple. — Gareth Hughes 22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just by you saying that abgar is an arab christians should rule you out for beeing an admin for these pages. Everyone who knows a little about middleeast history knows that Abgarids dynasty, nabateans, hatraeans, palmyreans arent arabs. But to know this then you must read more then regular popular books written by pro arab, or books written throguh support from arabs. Just so that you know that I dont blame you for not knowing more than you should, but I think it is wrong that you take upon your self a task wich you cannot handle. Michael 10:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, you are just being rude. I'm not entirely sure what your qualifications are for this. Pre-Islamic Syria was pretty much a mixture of Aramaic and Arabic personal names, the distribution of which varies from place to place. I'm not quite sure how you imagine I have a shelf full of 'pro-Arab' popular books. If I were to take a guess I might suggest that your reading consisted only of Sunday-School pamphlets. At least I know I'm neutral when I'm called a pro-Arab, pro-Assyrian, anti-Assyrian, anti-intellectual intellectual by everyone editing Assyrian people! — Gareth Hughes 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks

Thank for you for your rapid dealing with the anonymous vandal on the Flemming Rose page. But please keep watching the page, as I’m fairly sure it will start up again soon with a new ip or new created user. Twthmoses 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section headings in Aramaic of Jesus

Is Greek supposed to be in the section headings in Aramaic of Jesus like Ross Burgess is fiddling around with? When I added in Aramaic a while back, I was told that it was a violation of the Manual of Style and the edits were reverted.

[edit] Syriac Christianity

Shlomo Gareth,

Good to see you're back. Would you be so kind as to consider my suggestion on Talk:Assyrian people? Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to revive the Syriacs/miniproject, which I hereby propose to rename Syriac Christianity/miniproject as well. It might well be worth considering turning it into a real Wikiproject.

Please also note that Pylambert has left Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that we'll all be able to co-operate in harmony on the articles concerning the Syriac Christians. Yours, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fed up with Benne

I don't know how else to put it. He wants his own personal view to be pushed on everyone. He isn't going about any of this in a scientific or encylopedic nature. Granted I've done some questionable things on this encyclopedia but I haven't argued with a popular concensus. If he wants his views published he should do it on his own user page like everyone else.King Legit

His views are just different from yours. He's not entirely wrong, neither are you. There is more to the issue of self-identity than either of you have experienced. --Gareth Hughes 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akkadian language grammar

Thank you! I'd been meaning to do this for a while, and your version looks perfect. --Ben 23:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I think I got the paresum paradigm mostly right. I've left some blanks, because I couldn't find any reference to this verb in certain of the more oblique stems. Please correct it if you find any mistakes. --Gareth Hughes 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pylambert

Hi Garzo, Pylambert left a message on his talk page that he has quit Wikipedia. Would you be able to leave a message on his talk page to encourage him to come back? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akkadian, Assyrian, Hebrew, Arabic

I noticed something recently. In Hebrew ashur means approved similar to assured in English, and in Arabic akkad means assured. Is it just ironic or is it all relative? Does this have something to do with the "kings approval" maybe dating back to the Sumerian Akkadian times???King Legit

It is often tempting to do linguistic analysis based on sound-alikes, but it often leads to false conclusions. I'm not sure which Hebrew word you're talking about. אשר ’ešer means 'happy', and עשר ‘ōšer means riches. In Hebrew, Ashur is spelt אשור ’aššûr, always with the doubling of š and the consonant w standing for the long û vowel. There are other roots in Hebrew with similar sounds to that of the city, the closest is the word for 'gait'. — Gareth Hughes 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου

Thank you so much for your explication. It was truly enlightening for me in terms of both faith and intellect. --Halcatalyst 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I always find it enjoyable to spend some time looking into the nuances of such passages. — Gareth Hughes 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plyambert

1- I dont think that he even is an assyrian, nor have he anything to do with this people 2- Highly probable that one user here is using two names and used account plyambert to make radical changes. Michael 10:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So what? You have insulted me (above) and now you wish to spread rumours about another user. I would like you to assume good faith. — Gareth Hughes 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

............ No actually, I dont spread rumors, I just wanted to say my thoguhts about the topic where koikoi said that you should talk plyambert to return. And about insulting you, it is not my intention to insult you. Im telling you my view on that someone who is interested on giving a neutural and try to give an accurate view of the suryoyo(assyrian/aramean...) people. To be honest, I think that you do have good knowledge about language, but it seems that you have no interest on trying to understand the current situation of the suryoy people. and that is why I say that you arent the best candidate for this kind of job. But dont take it so personal, I hope that you understand this. It was not my intention to insult you in any way. I apologize if that is the case.

Best regards//Michael 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I believe that I'm the only administrator who can speak Aramaic — Kthobonoyo to be precise. I am increasingly unhappy with the article Assyrian people remaining under that title. I believe that the Assyrianist point of view should be presented in the article, but that it should not be dominant. I am English, and most of my friends who speak Syriac prefer to be called Suryoye, and dislike being called Othuroye with varying degrees of intensity. I understand that very much the shadow of the Ottoman millet system casts it shadows over the various groups of the Middle East. I understand that religious differences and diaspora have produced division, and that some, perhaps naïvely, wish to re-unite. If recently I've allowed more Assyrianism to get into the article, it is because I beleive I have been too against it in the past, and I do feel it is about time to redress the balance. — Gareth Hughes 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I actually scanned them from pictures I had. I did them all in Microsoft Photo Editor.68.61.26.34

Are they photographs that you took, or are they from a book? You should write the source explicitly on each image's page. — Gareth Hughes 19:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I scanned them from a book called Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum.King Legit
I beleive that British Museum Press holds the copyright to these images. You can go into the British Museum and photograph as much as you like, and the stuff is yours, but I think it's different if you use their own photographs. — Gareth Hughes 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
For example, the British Museum website strictly forbids the republishing of its material. I imagine exactly the same copyright applies to their books. — Gareth Hughes 20:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semitic Christians

I think that could be a possible recategorization for Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people because it would even include those who are referred to as "Arab" Christians.

Assyro-Chaldo-Syriacs or Assyro-Chaldo-Syriac people just seems too hyphenated.King Legit

Aramaic-speaking Christians sounds good or Aramaic-speaking people.

[edit] Mesopotamian Christians

That could aslo work!King Legit

[edit] Sargon.jpg

Can you please delete that picture? I no longer want it online.

OK, it's gone. Once deleted, images can't be brought back. — Gareth Hughes 14:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] arc.wikipedia.org

Shlomo Gareth,

I just noticed the (rather empty) Aramaic Wikipedia had been turned into an "Assyrian" Wikipedia, and changed it back to its original objective. If speakers of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic wish to establish their own Wikipedia, I think they should use the subdomain aii.wikipedia.org.

Would you be so kind to check the Arabic invitation on the arc:Main Page, and keep an eye on the website? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unpleasant user

Gareth, I wonder could you take a look at I_AM (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and possibly block him? He is editwarring on Palestinian Exodus to include inaccuracies as well as considerable POV, and more unpleasantly is making more or less racist comments to other users. Thanks, in any case. Palmiro | Talk 17:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on this user's talk page. They seem to have stopped for a while. Their contributions list suggests that they have a good understanding of how WIkipedia works, and could be simple trolling. — Gareth Hughes 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. At least one person seems to suspect him of being a sockpuppet, which seems likely enough. FYI since leaving my note on your page he infringed the 3-revert rule on Palestinian exodus and I reported him for that. Palmiro | Talk 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello - the same user I AM has just returned from his block with another offensive edit summary. I would block him myself, but since I'm an involved party, I was wondering if you could take a look. His latest edit is here. I also wonder (but am not sure) whether this user is a sockpuppet of User:Queeran. Thank you very much. Ramallite (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Update: The offensive user has been blocked by another admin for one week. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that he's committed page-move vandalism and has now been blocked for a week — I suppose we'll see what next Monday brings! — Gareth Hughes 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on Afshar experiment

Dear Garzo, thank you so much for trying to help. I have requested a number of times for an administrator to step in and stop the ridiculous situation caused by Danko Georgiev to no avail. I will not peruse the legal action and let your efforts to deal with this problem to proceed. Please let me know what you need to start the mediation. Please bear in mind that regardless of the merits of Danko's arguments (which have been refuted by all physicists) this individual (who is NOT a physicist) has resorted to accusing me of scientific Fraud as a last resort to provoke a response. This is no small accusation and it should not be allowed on WP. I am fully prepared to provide any information you might need to alleviate this problem. BTW/ I respect the WP no legal threats policy, but don't you think there should also be another policy to protect an individual from Defamation by another user as well? -- Afshar 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to cease threatening legal action. I have informed Danko Georgiev MD that he should refrain from subjective and personal comments towards you, and try to stay calm. There is a policy against personal attacks that covers the other side of things. It looks like he is currently offline, but hope that he will choose to work with us. I suggest that we wait until we have his initial response, and, in the meantime, I suggest that you refrain from editing Afshar experiment or any other article which is disputed among you. You may feel it useful to read Wikipedia:Autobiography: it's a guideline about Wikipedians writing articles about themselves. The article on your experiment partially falls in this area. I think you can see that when editing articles about something with which one is intimately involved one has to be even more careful to remain neutral and objective. I would like to disclose to you that my knowledge of physics is minimal, I am a linguist and a theologian. However, my first degree (BSc Durham University) was in physics. I hope that it helps knowing that I have a small grasp on the science and methodology involved. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Great! I must make it clear that the issue of editing the experiment page has been discussed at length by a number of editors like Linas, Drezet, Eequor and others in a deletion bid by Danko Georgiev, and the decision was made that any substantive changes be discussed in the talk pages and as for my contributions, after we agreed on the language and content, be posted by one of the impartial editors. I have strictly adhered to that agreement and my recent edits have been ref. chronology updates only. Although the article needs quite a bit of cleaning up, it has been impossible to conduct a regular discourse upon the agreement due to Danko's hyperbolae and accusations. Please take a look at his contribution history to see what I mean! This is not the first time he has accused me of fraud. In pervious occasions, I just simply decided not to engage him in a discussion in the hopes that he would cool down and be civil. It has failed thus far... P.S. Let me assure you that Danko has been dismissed by EVERY physicist with whom he has interacted, and I mean every single one. If you wish I can prvide you with the comments they have made about him both publicly and in private communications with me. Here's just one example of his lack of expertise in physics: [9] -- Afshar 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It does look like you have become frustrated with him. Of course, if Danko Georgiev can show his criticism of the article objectively, we shall have to discuss how to handle it. On the other hand, if he is unable to produce a clear and reasoned case for change in the article, we shall have to make it clear that enough is enough. I hope that he will be able to put the bad feeling between you behind him, and state clearly for me what the problem is. I would ask you to be prepared to talk objectively with him about his criticism, and be prepared to make reasonable changes to accomodate him. I'm afraid that consensus takes give and take. — Gareth Hughes 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As always, I am all for objective and academic discourse based on established scientific facts and methodology. But at some point, it becomes impossible to explain to a novice who lacks an understanding of the foundations that his/her conclusions are wrong. If one believes that 1+1=3 then it is futile to argue with them that 2+2 is not 5! But, I'll do my best to curtail my impatience...-- Afshar 18:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Gareth Hughes, thank you for your note. Actually it is Afshar who offended me many times personally with adjectives that usually should not be used against one's own personality. What I have done so far is to present arguments in the talk page [not the article itself!] where I find evidence for "massage" of experimental data, where "massage" in scientific folklore means "fit bad data = delete bad data" in order to get what you expect. I am always cool, and if Afshar can reply on the topic, not threaten me, it will ne nice. It is certain that the effect described by me that results from a "procedure" that Afshar has applied in his data detection, "deletes" bad for Afshar's interpretation data. His reply instead is "everybody uses this procedure", or "everybody does so". However this is no reply, because not everybody when applies this procedure claims after that that he has disproved one of the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics, such as complementarity. Danko Georgiev MD 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Garzo, I will not even attempt to respond to the confused comment by Danko above without your mediation. I’m sure you can see the mammoth task ahead!-- Afshar 01:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Afshar, the procedure that I mention above is the use of aperture stop to create "apodized wavefunctions". Is now my post NOT confused? I think I have written in full text where and how you manipulate the data in the talk page of Afshar's experiment. By the way in none of the popular advertisements of your experiment (such as New Scientist) is actually explained that this is ever done, nor that this little trick may act as "fitting" of what you want to get. And to illustrate how bad is your knowledge in physics one quotation by your preprint that is the final conclusion : "Since the arguments presented in this Letter are valid for all quantum particles, it is plausible that equivalent experiments could be performed involving electrons or neutrons with identical results to this experiment." This quotation shows the opinion of person who seems to have nothing to do with physics - electron is fermion, while photon is boson. Since you performed high flux photon (i.e. boson) experiment in your preprint [referred to as "Letter" by you] - exactly in the high flux electron (i.e. fermion) experiment you will have NOT identical result - as physicist you are supposed to know the difference between Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics. I think this example is clear to show that you lack any background in particle physics, so please read the suggested Wikipedia entries and update you "gaps" in the physical education. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry Danko, but you insist on embarrassing yourself! The double-slit experiments involving Fermions show the same results as in other SINGLE particle interference experiments. The Fermion statistics has to do with at least two Fermions occupying the same state SIMULTANEOUSLY which is forbidden by Pauli Exclusion Principle. Single particle interference experiments (first order) produce the same interference effects as for bosons (with small phase differences depending on the experimental set-up.) Mind the gap please! -- Prof. Afshar 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Afshar, read CAREFULLY "Since you performed high flux photon (i.e. boson) experiment in your preprint [referred to as "Letter" by you] - exactly in the high flux electron (i.e. fermion) experiment you will have NOT identical result ". Quotated from several lines above! I comment your pre-print on the high flux photon experiment, it DOES NOT REPORT THE SINGLE PHOTON EXPERIMENT THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE PRE-PRINT PRODUCTION! Your tiny tricky games are enough. If you cannot read carefully please buy better glasses. Danko Georgiev MD 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, You want to embarrass yourself more, let's go: The results of high-flux and low-flux double slit experiments are identical and are all considered to be single-particle interference. The high-flux regime is simply a faster single-particle process. This is a well-known fact, but if you oppose it, then produce your publisehd reference please. BTW/ There are no tricks here, just a simple demonstration of your utter lack of knowledge in the subject matter (too easy really!)-- Afshar 15:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Pre-Print is dated 2003! Do you forget that? No single photon experiment reported yet!!!! Or you have falsificated the year (of the irims preprint to be more specific)? Danko Georgiev MD 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Another paranoid comment? Read the comment above, and PIPE DOWN! -- Prof.Afshar 15:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comments from Linas

I'd like to make a few, quick comments about the Afshar/Danko mediation.

  • First: my credentials: I have a PhD in theoretical particle physics, although I work in the computer industry now. However, I continue to be active in the math and physics of quantum mechanics.
  • The article is a valid article on a valid topic. While I disagree with the more sensational interpretations of it, I do support the article. It seemed to have a more or less neutral POV last I skimmed through it.
  • I have not witnessed Prof. Afshar make any inappropriate edits on either the article, or the talk page. If anything, I find that Prof. Afshar was excessively cautious, and a bit too un-involved. At times, there were obvious faults with the article; which I was too lazy to fix, and was rather surprised to see that Afshar did not fix them either (as fixing them would have bolstered his position.)
  • Danko has no formal training in physics, although he has embarked on a program to learn it. Unfortunately, he does not have even the most basic grounding needed to understand QM; in particular, he does not understand real analysis or complex analysis, both taught at the freshman/sophomore college level, which are pre-requisits for understanding certain simple things, such as Fourier analysis, (taught at the junior college level), which are needed to grasp QM. This is not an accusation, it is rather a statement of fact; I had lengthly email conversations with him, wherein we discussed a book he recently purchased on complex analysis, and his progress in understanding what a complex function was, how complex derivatives worked, etc. (I suspect he does not know calculus, that bane of college freshmen). In short, Danko has no technical expertise on this topic whatsoever, and so his intense desire to engage in debate seems more of a test of ego and self-confidence, than based in rational discourse.

I don't know what a remedy to such a case should be. linas 23:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Linas, ignorance can be "cured" by reading textbooks. You quote that I study complex analysis and this is actually a compliment not something bad. What about my understanding of QM, actually I think you are not the one who can judge this. Danko Georgiev MD 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Linas, for your comments. Your support is useful. The references that are given at the foot of the article all seem to come from good sources, and, without reading all of them, I assume that they support the article as it stands. Danko Georgiev's qualification to comment on and edit the article cannot be in question, this is Wikipedia. However, legal threats and personal attacks have no place here, and the policy that is important here is verifiability. If there is consensus that the given sources make Afshar's position verifiably reasonable, then Georgiev's position has to be furnished with at least one source from a peer -reviewed publication. Does everyone feel that this is a reasonable request? — Gareth Hughes 14:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Garzo, (1) I do not see you asking Danko to take back his Fraud accusations. Why? Isn't that as important as the policy against legal actions? (2) The references in my papers are all from peer-reviewed publications, and well-established. (3) Danko Georgiev's position is "not even wrong," that is, it is beyond redemption! In "defense" of Complementarity, he violates so many laws of physics that I cannot even begin to number them here. He did put together a hodge-podge paper of copied and pasted material from internet sources that have been aptly rejected from archives, and cannot possibly be cited in WP. His involvement in the talk page is akin to allowing someone off the street to take part in Brain surgery! This is not an educational arena and neither I, nor other experts have the time to teach Danko, or point out every error in his statements. His arguments are certainly in the category of "Original Research" and cannot be allowed to be aired here. He is more than welcome to put up his arguments on his own web-page.-- Prof. Afshar 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Are any of these papers from arXiv.org relevant? It looks like they are not overwhelmingly supportive, but maybe not entirely negative either. — Gareth Hughes 15:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Garzo, Those are all legitimate papers, by real physicists that understand the basics of the subject matter and argue in a much more subtle way than Danko could comperhend. He is trying to join their ranks by ranting, but I'm afraid he won't. P.S. What about my questions above? Could you please address them?--Afshar 15:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have asked Danko to provide sources for his claims. — Gareth Hughes 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Which claims specifically? I am waiting to see you challenge Danko on the Fraud accusations...--Afshar 16:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gareth, I think this parody should stop. The argument that Afshar uses "inverse engeneering" and "data massage" is my personal claim. I cannot provide third party reference, but I never insisted that I have one. I have clearly stated that this is my own argument. I will not answer to Afshar's provocations any more, he simply resists rational dialogue. Danko Georgiev MD 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Danko, for the last time, your accusations of "data massage" and fraud are unacceptable. I expect Garzo to act according to the rules on personal attacks as these accusations can harm my career. I also expect you to take back your accusations immediately, or I will take the issue to the WP foundation, if Garzo does not take the appropriate action (who for some baffling reason is far too lenient on you.) If these types of behavior are not managed, we undermine the very legitimacy of Wikipedia, and are doomed to repeat the Seigenthaler affair. I have been invited to give a talk at an international conference on “Academia in Wikipeida” which is covered by the Press. I hope that I can deliver an encouraging message! -- Prof. Afshar 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Dear Garzo, Thank you for your fair efforts to settle the dispute. While I doubt that Danko Gerogieve can stick to your notifications, I am grateful that a cool-headed evaluation of this sorry episode has been recorded. If Danko starts his antics again, I will follow up according to your suggestion. Best regards.--Afshar 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Garzo Hello , my name is Aurelien Drezet Iam a physicist working in Austria. I partipated several time to the discussion concerning the experiment of Afshar. Even if it is a litle bit too late now I would like to mention that even if the result of Afshar stirred controversy after its presentation in New scientist it is not the first time that a scientist attacks the position of Bohr . If we should condamn the enthousiasm of Afsahr in defending his interpretation we will condamn all scientists in the same way. Moreover, it is clear that there are several interpretations of the results obtained by S. Afshar but I think that the list of publication and preprint at the end of the Afshar page gives a neutral and equal chance to different scientific interpretations. I dont really understand what Georgiev consider this experiment as a falsification: this is an original experiment very simple to realize and which can illustrate either violation (for Afshar) or application (for me and others) of Bohr's complementarity. To conclude 1) the experiment exists and Afshar invented it, 2) Interpretation is not falsification. Thus I do not see the point of disagreement???

with best regards from a french in austria Drezet 16:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Drezet, the problem is on the "apodization" of the wavefunction, so you can think how this affects the airy disc pattern, and how the airy disc pattern depends on whether you measure photon's wavelength or photon's "which way" hence "time travel" that will result in uncertainty in photon's E and wavelength and hence will change the airy disc pattern. Well, this is not the place to comment on that, yes you are quite late and the discussion is over. Wikipedia is not the place for this dialogue. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 05:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup/danke schön, Drezet, for your comments. There seems to be sufficient support for Afshar and his experiment from physicists while they often disagree with his conclusions. I am yet to hear back from Danko Georgiev, but I have found that his claims, unsupported by other sources, are not really matter for Wikipedia to deal with. — Gareth Hughes 17:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gareth, my reply to you is on my personal discussion page. I am glad that Afshar has calmed down after reading my note. Danko Georgiev MD 05:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A flower for you...

...because a little kindness and thought does go a long way - in very subtle ways. --HappyCamper 13:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A fragrant flower to brighten your day :-) From HC.
A fragrant flower to brighten your day :-) From HC.
Thank you so much, HC, for the kind words and the lovely lilly. In the midst of all those wiki-tantrums out there it is good to find serenity. — Gareth Hughes 16:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! You can even smell its fresh fragrance :-) I admire the time and energy you spend here to make Wikipedia a better place. With earnest, HappyCamper 03:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

but don't anticipate me being too involved - I shouldn't have spent this much time on Wikipedia today as it is! Keep up the good work. - Mustafaa 15:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move of Lombard language

I notice you voted on the recent proposed move of Lombard language. Please check out a new proposal here: Talk:Lombard language. AjaxSmack 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kabylie

Hi again! Would you mind keeping an eye on Kabylie - some Berberist fantasizer is repeatedly substituting made-up population figures, a map nearly doubling the area where Kabyle is actually spoken, and a totally unofficial flag. Thanks, - Mustafaa 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears that this user is doing the usual nationalistic rant. However, it would be good if you can find decent sources for the demography of the region. Do you have any idea where the flag comes from? — Gareth Hughes 16:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you might be interested in this new discovery

Shlama, they have just discovered this [10] in the village of Bakhdida. They believe its from the Bezintine. Thought you might like it. ps - I have already gotten the ok to use the pics but I dont know if you would like to use them in any page.Chaldean 03:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You must understand!

Chaldeans do not approve of the falsehoods on the Assyrian page or the page called Chaldean because it does not conform to the Catholic Church's historical belief in Chaldeans. The webpage claims all Aramaeans are Assyrians which cannot be any more false. In the Chaldean and Assyrian communities there is racism and tension between us, although there are some Assyrians who do believe and know that Chaldeans have existed for thousands of years, see the webpage http://www.chaldeansonline.net/Banipal/English/hannona.html for more information. We Chaldeans do not believe that we all have come from Assyrians, but we do know our Chaldean heritage, we are proud of it, and never call ourselves Assyrians. So how can it be fair that the webpage Chaldean, cannot be based on the true catholic beliefs of Chaldeans, but only reserved by Assyrians who do not accept the Chaldean ethnicity as a whole, related peoples of the same Sumerian and Aramaean backgrounds. Please let myself and other ethic Chaldeans change the webpage Chaldean.

You must understand also that calling people 'racists' is inflammatory and will not be tolerated. If you wish to be involved in this project you must be able to communicate in a civil manner. Of course, no page belongs to any one person or group of people: so, no Chaldeans cannot own the Chaldean article. I have spent the last few months trying to steer an even course between Chaldeans, Assyrians and Syriacs, and the article Assyrian people is undergoing changes to make it more inclusive (including a possible name change). Please feel free to get involved in the process of improving the article, but be aware that we are trying to produce a neutral, inclusive article, which might not equate with the content of the dogma of any one church. — Gareth Hughes 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A possible name change? I hope you meant inevitable ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


In the Chaldean and Assyrian communities there is racism and tension between us - your a such a lier. You probably have never ever in your life left the city of Detroit. If you came with me to the Nineveh plains, then you would see how false your statement is. There is no tention between us what so ever. Stop stpreading rumers. Chaldean 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We Chaldeans do not believe that we all have come from Assyrians, but we do know our Chaldean heritage, we are proud of it, and never call ourselves Assyrians. lol, who is we? You mean you. You, a Chaldean in Detroit does not represent Chaldeans in the Middle East. Chaldean 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaldea

I just reverted an edit on Chaldea as it smelled very much of POV. Please doublecheck in case the various factions have come to some agreement I have missed. Agathoclea 22:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are perfectly right. Chrisch59 is trying to insert Chaldaeanist bias anywhere possible. — Gareth Hughes 17:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] earsing my changes in "hebrew lagnuage"

why do you erase it? I'm adding a usfull and popular tool, a virtual keyboard just like the one that is already there (mikledt.com) but doesnt work that good

no need to delete my changes

Does a virtual keyboard help with the words 'erasing', 'language' and 'useful'? The relevant guideline is WP:EL: Wikipeida is not a collection of links. It doesn't look like your virtual keyboard works either. — Gareth Hughes 17:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request

I would like to inform about the Arbitration request concerning the long discussion on Talk:Dutch language.

[The link to the Arbitration request will follow soon, as I have to inform you before posting]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language

Sander 10:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intervention needed

If I edit the Assyrian people article again, I'll break the three-revert rule, so I ask you to intervene. User:Chaldean has been denying that there are many Chaldeans, not only in Detroit, who do not want to be labelled as Assyrians. Also, there are Syriacs who prefer not to choose between the Aramaean and Assyrian sides, but rather call themselves Suryāye. I think these facts should be acknowledged in the article.

Once again, I urge you to move the page. It's been almost a month now since the totally undiscussed merge action by Pylambert (I thought you set up a miniproject to discuss these questions!), and I'm getting fed up with the whole situation. The article contains too much Assyrianist nonsense now. I think it's time for action now. This can't go on much longer. People visiting Wikipedia are being misled into thinking that all Suryāye are "Assyrians". It doesn't only concern this page, but also pages like Assyrian genocide and Assyrian diaspora. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We do have to take the majority along with us: imposing one's will is not an option. Therefore, moving a page in the middle of an edit war is not going to work. We got fairly close to a consensus on 'Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans and Syriacs' before, and we can get there again. However, we have to put it together in such a way as we can show clear consensus for it, and use that to defend against those who will keep coming to impose their bias. — Gareth Hughes 17:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
many Chaldeans, not only in Detroit, who do not want to be labelled as Assyrians. Prove it Chaldean 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop with the aggressive language (i.e. 'prove it'): it doesn't help anyone. — Gareth Hughes 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am getting really frusterated with false claims being used here and there by liers like Benne. (this is not a threat. This is actual fact as proven in the Assyrian people page, where I revield Benne writing in the German Wikipedia that Chaldeans are Aramaeans people.) Chaldean 16:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, stop calling others liars: it is considered threatening, and I do not believe that anyone of the main proponents here wishes intentionally to mislead others. Read Wikipedia:Civility. — Gareth Hughes 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about you, but my blood boils when I see someone telling the world my ethnicity is something else. I am not calling him a liar, I am stating he is a liar. I am civilized, but I will not act normal and pretend nothing happend when someone does what he did. Chaldean 04:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guantánamo/Guantanamo-related move/redirects

Greetings! I hope you're well. In light of prior discussion and to round out recent moves and redirects/DABs regarding Guantánamo/Guantanamo-related articles, I have proposed another ... with a twist. Please weigh in, and thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode for Language Research Scripts

Re your always welcome editing for Abuna Article, the Ge'ez characters does not show (nor in any wiki page for that mattar). I am using a Windows xp. The syriac characters show perfectly. Any idea? BTW. It will be cool to have an HTML code table in the Ge'ez alphabet as in Syriac alphabet. May be that would help. Thanks. --Connection 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're using Internet Explorer it isn't always very good at selecting the correct font. One of the workarounds is to use template:unicode: that replaces አቡነ with አቡነ. If the second set of Ge'ez letters display properly, then that template is the best workaround. As you can see Syriac displayed properly, you should have a unicode font that covers Ge'ez as well (because Syriac appears to be less commonly provided for than Ge'ez). I hope that helps with the Ge'ez display issue. Of course, the Ge'ez inventory is a lot larger than that for Syriac, so a Unicode code table would have to be that much bigger. — Gareth Hughes 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. Ironically, what I see is "...to use template:unicode: that replaces (3 bars) with (3 bars)."! Worse, the examples in template:unicode Discussion does not display properly either. What is worse is that I have been a full-time programmer. I guess I will need to go through issues raised in that discussion. --Connection 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That's odd. I'm running Firefox on Linux, so I'm not sure quite how to deal with this problem. Perhaps you could install a font with a really good Unicode coverage, like Code2000 for instance. Otherwise, I'm stuck for a clear solution. — Gareth Hughes 20:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assyrians page...

I disagree with renaming the page. Chaldeans redirects to Chaldea and Arameans has it's own section. Let it be that way. Why should the Assyrians page be sacrificed with the previous two remaining. Syriacs has Syriac Christianity. Syriacs that wish to be called Arameans have a page as do Chaldeans that wish to disassociate with Assyrians. So why should the Assyrian page suffer? Let the Syriac Christianity page handle the collective handle of Syriacs and let the Chaldeans stay redirected to Chaldea and Arameans to the page of the same name.

[edit] Sesotho

Hi. I was the primary contributer to this article some 2 years ago and virtually all the linguistic info was added by me. I know the article is not perfect but I'm currently not very well connected and, it would seem, this is not a topic other editors are at all familiar with. I'd like to have a running dialogue with you about it but since your talk page is so long (50 pages on my cellphone) this can only work if we discuss it on my talk page. Thank you. User:ZyXoas 09:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Time zones of Europe

Hi Gareth, template expert. Do you know why the time zone colors are not shown in the legend: Template:Time zones of Europe. Maybe you can fix this. Thx for listening. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot quite work out what you mean: thetemplate looks fine to me. — Gareth Hughes 20:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Sesotho

Is these some Wiki policy which urges Wiki editors to ignore users who are not logged in? I thought you might be interested in working with the article's primary contributor since you were not sure about the linguistics. I wrote much of it before I signed up so its edit history will be misleading. I know this is nowhere near as exiting as deciding whether some people who call themselves Assyrian have a right to do so but could you at least tell me what you think on my talk page? Thx (User:ZyXoas) 07:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As requested, I've replied on your talk page. — Gareth Hughes 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sesotho (again...)

Sorry for being such a loser earlier on but this is seriously frustrating enough without having some people ignore me like I have nothing substantial to offer (I beg to differ). I actually got blocked by user AssJerk (or was it EssJay?...) a while ago for suggesting that some people (including him) didn't understand what "please reply on my talk page" meant. Anyway, please watch Talk:Sesotho_language as I'll be posting corrections and suggestions there soon. Thanks. User:ZyXoas 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

== "Oh no, not Sesotho again!" == Sorry, but personally I actually prefer to talk to people directly on their own talk pages, so we can talk about the article on our talk pages. Question: where did you get your information? Some of the phonetic info is quite wrong. Z is not part of standard Sesotho, /x/ does not come from loanwords, and o and e are not semivowels only in loanwords. Seriously, where did you get that from? Sorry about the confusing info on spelling - I'm actually embarrassed by it and if I had an internet connection I would immediately fix it and the rest of the article, but... The tables should have 1 column for SA spelling and another for LS spelling. I'll be giving you examples of the phonemes as Mark had suggested soon, perhaps... There is an obvious contradiction early on in the article: it says Sesotho is related to 2 other languages but it lists 3.

If you carefully read through the article without letting yourself get distracted by the linguistics you'll notice quite a few obvious spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as subtle contradictions. Again - sorry about these. I'll read through the article again and note all the mistakes I can see and tell you about them later. See you on my talk page? User:ZyXoas 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. — Gareth Hughes 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi,

We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 00:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would love your help.

As an Anglican priest, I thought you might be interested to know that I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== Sesotho phonetics == Yes, I tried today but I still didn't have enough time. I noticed the commented sections - could you dump them on my talk page so I'll see what I can do? Sorry I thought you were the one who added that incorrect info - where do these people get this stuff from!!? Wikipedia is fantastic and everything but it really annoys me when people put up obviously incorrect info, especially since I generally can't go in there and just fix it! Hope you've fully recovered from your illness. Zyxoas 20:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff on my talk page

Once again I'm proving just how much of an ass I can be. Thanks for putting that stuff on my talk page, but I should have told you earlier that User:JackyR had already put it in User:Zyxoas/Sesotho - please take a look and comment on my talk page about my preliminary notes. I find it a bit disturbing that it's okay to edit articles based on guesswork, but I guess there wouldn't be many articles then, hey? 216.239.58.136 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaans Language Monument

Hi. I've revived the discussion over at Talk:Afrikaans#Taal Monument, contending that the Taalmonument is indeed the only one dedicated purely to a language (in case you'd wish to respond). --Piet Delport 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not so sure that such a clear statement of the monument's unique standing can be made. I've replied on the article talk page. — Gareth Hughes 17:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not the superstitious type however...

forget it...

[edit] Hey

How do you get your the dashes in your sig to look like that? Regards, Khoikhoi 07:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! It's an m-dash. You can get it by typing — or using the relevant code point. I've set up my keyboard to type it with double-hyphen COMPOSE. — Gareth Hughes 12:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright thanks! Check it out now: —Khoikhoi 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syriac script

Hi Gareth, someone could use your help at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Syriac Script. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've given a fairly complete answer there. — Gareth Hughes 19:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourgish language

Hi Gareth, could you translate this extra articles I've added in Luxembourgish language. This extra article about Luxembourgish I quote is from Luxembourg language itself. If you cannot do it, can anybody else do it? — Emrrans (Talk) 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak the language. Although I can read it, I would not be all that confident in translating it accurately, and I will have little time to do so this month. Your best bet would be to contact someone in Category:User lb. — Gareth Hughes 08:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You will have seen it on your watchlist...

Please have a look at Talk:Assyrian_people#Redirect/rename_mess. --Pjacobi 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Arabic

Hello Gareth! Do you mind taking a look at Egyptian Arabic? There is an edit conflict with a user who's been on Wikipedia for less than a week and is already engaged in an edit war over a simple "language vs. dialect" dispute. I have attempted to reach consensus on the talk page, but he dismisses any sources by what he calls "foreigners" (i.e. non-Egyptians) or "Christians". He constantly questions my integrity which makes it difficult to continue the discussion. I'd appreciate your input. — Zerida 22:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like things have cooled down after being warned by admin — Zerida 21:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!


I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 14:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frahang-i Pahlavig

In case you're not watching Frahang-i Pahlavig (you were the last to edit):
I've restructured the article and added some information from other sources. However, as I noted on Talk:Frahang-i Pahlavig, there is a statement in there that I took over from your edit, but which I find a bit troublesome. Could you give me a heads-up if/when you can source that? Thanks. -- Fullstop 17:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you have done improving this article. I do not know much on this subject — I'm an Aramaic specialist — but I've tried to add what I can. I felt that the example of the KLB'/sag huzvarishn was a useful explanation of how they worked. Is the reason for its removal that it is not technically correct? I cannot remember much about my previous edit to this article, and I cannot find it my notes. However, the place of the Frahang in th Sassanid administration seems to make sense. Perhaps it is providing a more definite raison d'être than can be fully supported. — Gareth Hughes 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion

Why are you proposing the Nahrainean article for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 May 2006.

Because it's a nonsense that only exists inside your head. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahrainean. — Gareth Hughes 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for insulting me. http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geurkqx2BEZcoAgyNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2dnY0Nm1iBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=12qsb29eh/EXP=1147279530/**http%3a//www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2006/01.21.06/index_sat.php

There's a link to Zinda that says otherwise.

Pipedream of a teenager... Interesting. First I'm 25 and second of all I remember reading it in that Zinda article not to mention from Church. Nahraya means river person. Nakhraya means foreigner. Maybe you're confused.

[edit] Assyrians page

Garth, so what are we going to do about the page? You can't stay silent forever. Are we going to fix it or keep on pushing it aside? Chaldean 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read this article on Hugoye

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies Past and PresentKing Legit

There is my validation of the term Nahraya. It means Beth-Nahrainean/Beth-Nahrainian or Nahrainian/Nahranean aka Mesopotamian with a minor difference in that the Aramaic/Syriac term desribes not only the area between the Tigris and Euphrates but also the surrounding areas. Thank you very much. I know a thing or two about my own people Mr. Syriac Studies.

I regularly read Hugoye and I have read this article. The article discusses nahrāyā in Syriac. It is the Syriac word for Mesopotamian. In the context of Syriac literature, van Rompay discusses Jacob of Edessa's use of the term and its distinction from Orhāyā. This exists in a couple of footnotes in this essay. It is not what you wrote about in your article, which seems to be an exercise in carving out a different identifier for the people (see WP:NOR). If anything, some information might be added to the Mesopotamia article, but I don't think this word has enough milage for this, let alone its own article. — Gareth Hughes 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I redirected the article to Beth Nahrain and added a line at the end of the article explaining the usage of the term Nahraya and also in the Assyrians article.King Legit

[edit] Syriacs

Shlomo Garzo,

I think it's about time to move the so-called Assyrian people page. You allowed the article title "Assyrian genocide" and let User:Pylambert merge the articles, and since that moment there has been no progress when it comes to the naming of the people in question. A worrying side-effect of this misnomer is that by now, a host of new articles have been started with "Assyrian" in their titles (concerning the diasporas, for example), and readers of Wikipedia might get the impression that that is the correct name for the Suryoye.

The people who have for centuries been calling themselves Suryoye, Aramaeans, and/or Chaldaeans, are thus ignored just because a number of active Assyrianists appear to be quite effective in spreading their propaganda on Wikipedia. This should not be the case in an encyclopaedia that claims to be neutral. Please do something about it! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that the Assyrianist line is taking over once more. I shall put up a request to move the page. I shall have to state quite clearly that registered users may only use one account to make their opinion known, and hope that there is a clear consensus to move it. — Gareth Hughes 12:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pure comedy Chaldean 13:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assyrians move

I hope you'll notice that I haven't been involved with the "Assyrian people" page previously, and I have my own reasons for my objections. I didn't realize the extent of the conflict and certainly didn't mean to exacerbate the situation for you. I only found the issue because I work on the "requested moves" page; I'm just a white boy from New York and I have no agenda of my own, political, cultural, or otherwise. While my "oppose" vote stands, please rest assured that I had the best of intentions. Kafziel 14:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you're an admin and all, but it's a pretty bad idea to post a page move request and then never come back all day long. The article has gone straight to hell, including personal accusations of terrorism, and the article being moved to "River people" without discussion (which I think we can both agree is absurd). I hope that when you return you'll be putting things back to how they were at the start of the discussion. I wash my hands of the situation, and wish you all the best. Kafziel 20:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have right to do something more important than Wikipedia: to work. Posting a request for a move is a reasonable way to do things around here, and there is no reason for me to be constantly online to badger those who disagree with me. In fact, that way of working is probably most unhelpful. As a Syriac scholar, I believe that there is a whitewash going on. If you read the article you will see that it explicitly speaks of other designations throughout. It is also a well-known fact that a substantial portion of the community reject the name Assyrian, just as their parents and grandparents have done. I ask you to reconsider your oppose vote, a vote I believe supports the whitewash. For neutrality's sake, I beleive that the article should be under the name of all the various designations used. — Gareth Hughes 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course you have the right to work. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that it would be better to start a move request when you're just starting your daily Wikying, rather than right before you leave. But I did manage to find another administrator who was able to give the situation his attention and get some control.
As for my objection: If you're worried about somehow marginalizing those ethnic/religious groups (despite the fact that they have their own articles), what about marginalizing the vast majority who do identify themselves as Assyrian? Although most of them have gone about expressing their opinions in a somewhat uncivil manner, the several editors on the article's talk page seem to make a fairly clear argument that they feel the article is where it should be. Some of them may be politically, religiously, or racially motivated, but in the end, those factors form the basis of the entire article.
Perhaps, rather than changing the name of that article, a disambiguation page could be created (perhaps at River people?). That page could list each page, including Assyrian people, and let readers choose the specific ethnic group they're looking for. It has worked fairly well for Native Americans, which is a very similar situation. Everyone wins; the Assyrians keep their page, the other religious groups keep (and perhaps improve) their pages, and any confusion is dealt with at the disambiguation page. Kafziel 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
A new user just proposed "Mesopotamian people", which might be a good location for the disambiguation page I suggested above. Kafziel 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mesopotamian people is just too vague to be any good. Such a term might be construed as including groups who have quite different cultural backgrounds but who happen to live in the region. — Gareth Hughes 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, man, you're going to have to compromise somewhere. It's pretty obvious from the vote on Assyrian people that the move you want isn't going to happen. I'm trying to be realistic and help you put a stop to the extremely protracted argument over there by offering a solution everyone can live with. It's supposed to be vague; it's a disambiguation page. So what if it does include other cultures? First you say you want it to be more inclusive (so long as it's inclusive of the cultures you care about) and now you're saying it's too inclusive? You're suggesting we lump together Christians, Muslims, and all manner of ancient religions in the same article, yet you balk at the idea of including them together on a disambiguation page? Kafziel 03:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you took my last comment as a sign of inflexibility. I think the proposal for such a named disambiguation page to useless and misleading. Yes, it would be possible to have a page discussing the various Mesopotamian peoples, but there are quite different cultures here. The fact is that there is a diverse yet clearly defined people group from Mesopotamia who share Aramaic language and Christian religion as the cornerstones of acommon identity and culture. There is a huge debate about nomenclature in the community, and the cry for Assyrian unity is the strongest. It is a whitewash to include those members of this group who reject this term and historically have never used it in an article about Assyrian people. It is likewise a whitewash to exclude them as somehow separate, which they are not. Historically, some of the people have always been called Assyrian (but this was more a geographical statement than an ethnic one), the increased use of this label is due to political Assyrian Nationalism. For this reason the US census has no entry for Assyrian but one for Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. This shows that the nomenclature is nowhere as clear as you imagine. Your comments above about inclusivity show that you haven't quite grasped what this is all about: it is about a definite people group who lack consensus of nomenclature, and are having one designation forced on them by a part of the group. — Gareth Hughes 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
By now you must have had a look at my user page, so you should realize that I know a thing or two about Arab culture, too. This is not about me "imagining" or "grasping"; I know. And my experience is free from any religious bias, as I am agnostic. I also don't care what the US census has to say about it. They also include Comanches and Iroquois in the same category. The US has a history of being, shall we say, less than accurate when it comes to ethnic diversity. Funny how other countries love to remind us of that until it suits their purposes to support us.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to stand on and champion the rights of those you perceive to be oppressed, and that you should not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. You are advocating for these groups, and you have disrupted Wikipedia by forcing the introduction to be changed despite all consensus to the contrary.
I'm not saying Syriacs, Syrians, and Arameans, don't have the right to be represented. I'm saying they already are. They have their own articles already and there's no need to try to hijack this one to further press the issue. Don't worry about what one person out of a million might "perceive" about the page. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article focused on Assyrian culture, so you shouldn't be trying to force changes based on your own priorities. It's important to keep in mind that no matter how much you study, you will never know more about the situation than they do themselves. Kafziel 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


It is also a well-known fact that a substantial portion of the community reject the name Assyrian - Once again, not true at all what so ever in terms of "substantial portion" Chaldean 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I believe the majority of Syriac Orthodox and Syrian Catholics reject the designation Assyrian, and they prefer to be known as Syriacs, Syrians or Aramaeans. A small number of Chaldeans prefer to use that designation rather than Assyrian. Unfortunately, there is no worldwide survey of which designations people prefer, so this has to be based on experience. The leadership of the Syriac Orthodox and Syrian Catholic churches use Suryani/Suryoye as their official designation, and many of the faithful use that as their cultural designation, using Assuri/Othuroye to describe members of the church of the East. — Gareth Hughes 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Kafriez, I think you made some great points, but when you made this comment:

It's important to keep in mind that no matter how much you study, you will never know more about the situation than they do themselves - I think this is going abit too far. I believe Gareth has positioned himself to be around some type of Syriac-speaking community in England. Gareth, I am more then aware of Syriac Orthodox members rejecting Assyrian identity..so then what do we do from here? Go back to the splitting of the groups from the Assyrian page, in my opinion. Chaldean 02:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aramaic-speakers

Check out the article and give me your opinion on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 May 2006.

The article is a useful sowing together of bits gleaned from other articles. The hyphen in the title is not right, use a space instead (one writes Aramaic speakers but Aramaic-speaking people). Also, the importance of Aramaic for Jews is virtually missing: Jewish classical and modern Aramaic should be given equal treatment to Christian classical and modern Aramaic. — Gareth Hughes 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I will need some help on that subject.King Legit

Nobody speaks Aramaic today. The language is dead, but it created offshores like Syriac. Saying people speak Aramaic today is like saying people today speak Latin, which is not true. Chaldean 02:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do something about Benne.

I spent an hour editting the Assyrian page and he reverts it. All he has to do is edit one or two words at the top which I didn't even change and it would be fine but he CHOSES to completely revert the article totally negated anything constructive I added to it. He is acting like a complete jerk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 May 2006.

Benne has a right to edit the article equal to yours. Some of your edits introduce rather excentric and non-standard ideas, including the term Nahrainean, which has no discreet meaning. It makes no sense to cry foul over Benne, when I have seen the amount of vandalism you have done through this and other accounts. Like the rest of us, you will have to work out consensus on he talk page. — Gareth Hughes 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There are multiple accounts on this ip address because it is used by many people here. I work for a corporation that employs tens of thousands of people, some of whom I have shown the work I've put on here.King Legit

[edit] Assyrian people revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&oldid=53743846

Give your opinion on this revision. It keeps being reverted to an inferior article.Yessou El Maseekh

Gareth, can you please temperarly stop Sargonious aka Peter Agga aka Yessou El Maseekh aka Jihad Jones from editing Assyrian people. He is making up things out of nowhere and is making no sense Chaldean 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/r/User_talk%7EGarzo_archive_2005-11-23-2006-05-23_dc30.html"