User talk:Sr 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sr 76, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for World Council of Arameans (Syriacs). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rafy talk 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chaldean people without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! KJ Discuss? 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made the change because to my surprise that page Chaldean People had no {{edit protected}} applied. As apposed to other pages such as Syriac People, Aramean People that all redirect to page Assyrian People.Sr 76 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to ask for edit protection on the redirect page? Or are you trying to delete it? KJ Discuss? 01:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the edit protection needs to be removed. The forced redirection from the Syriac/Aramean/Chaldean people and the deletion of that content is extremely unethical. Sr 76 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry[edit]

Hello. Are you aware of our policy on sock puppetry? Would you like to admit creating several accounts? If so, perhaps we can sort this out quickly. Otherwise I suspect you will find your account blocked shortly. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Previous unblock requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here: firstly you have made the assumption that i have created multiple accounts because according to the "Sockpuppet investigations/Sr 76/Archive" identified 4 people from the same city, Sydney has population of approx 5 million people. So NO sockpuppetry, if these people found out about what was happening on Wikipeadia and took issue with it and reacted with the talk above that is surely up to them. The only "cross over" identified in this investigation was a users called 1history1 and rooster11, even though rooster11 made no contributions. Secondly, the comment "and pretended to hold a conversation with them?" all my comments were directed to Penguins53, i ignored everyne else.

Decline reason:

Your explanations are simply not credible. The probability that all 4 users come from the same city is negligible. Unless you come clean, there is very little chance of being unblocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here : are you saying if these people find out about the issue, they are going to want to deal with it? So let me get this straight, you expect me not to mention this issue to people, and if i do i should insist that they DON'T make any comments otherwise I personally will be accused of creating false accounts? What 4 people do in there own time is some thing i need to deal with because they live in a major capital. A credible answer = a false confession?

Decline reason:

You're simply describing WP:MEAT, but at least you seem to slowly be edging towards honesty. This was noted during the sockpuppet investigation; perhaps you could point out that you realize the problem and will cease to disruptive recruit single purpose editors to attempt to circumvent consensus>? Kuru (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Its always been honest. I cant identify these people online since they are all using pseudonyms, i can only speak to the 2 people that I had a conversation with (not "recruited" since they were not given instructions), that it appears as thought the from a WikiAdmin perspective like sockpuppetry. I don't know where the others came from.
Just so you know, Wikipedia policies makes it far too easy to create an anomaly in the way editors are allowed to contribute to the site. This "Assyrian People" redirection issue is a great example: In 2009 there was a issue of a "content fork" where the debate went on for years and then a "vote/consensus" taken with in the space of 5 days(doesn't seem reasonable). Now Wikipeadia represent all ethnic appellations Aramean, Syriac and Chaldean under the label Assyrian, while the Assyrians are the smallest group of all the other groups (the others take offence to the Assyrian identity). As a result Wikipeadia has ostracise the larger Syriac-Christians groups for the past 5 years. Because the name Assyrian is offensive to the Syriac/Arameans/Chaldeans and is historically inconssistent, Wikipeadia has lost cedibility as a valid resource with these people, SO PEOPLE HAVE SIMPLY LEFT WIKIPEDIA AS EDITORS. Now in 2014 in order to have the protected-redirection removed, we need "consensus" but the only editors left are politically motivated Assyrians that have Wikipedia already accommodating their political agenda. So why would they offer a consensus? As "Penguins53" demonstrated on the "Syriac People" talk page, they can simply run away from the discussion as soon as any evidence is presented (since wikipedia is doing what they want anyway). Any new editors that join to correct this will be labeled sockpuppets.

A great example: look at the contributions made by the user "Penguins53" he has made almost 1500 changes from 15 February 2013 to 22 November 2014 almost unquestioned. He has been able to vandalize Wikiedia because the only editors interested in the topic of Syriac-Christians of the middle east are now most Assyrians (the others are gone) for the reasons stated above. His changes all follow the common theme of removing the names Syriac/Aramean/Chaldean and replacing it with Assyrian and while others include:
- modifying references
- replacing the word "Christian" with the word "Assyrian" (since when does the word "Christian" lend itself exclusively to the word "Assyrian"?)
- changing the use of the word "Areamean" to past tense ("the Arameans are" changed to "the Arameans were"). In other words the Arameans once existed, but now they no longer exist.

Accept reason:

See discussion below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this request has merit. I'll write my comments shortly and discuss with the blocking administrator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't had time and I won't have until tomorrow. So if another administrator could review this, it's fine. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thankyou for your timeSr 76 (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I see that no one else has responded yet. I think we are making some progress here, but there are still some issues to explore. The following accounts were found to have similar editing habits and geographical location:
In your unblock request, you state that you know two of these editors in real-life. Which two editors are these? Without disclosing their identities, can you explain how you know them? How did you make them aware of the discussion on Talk:Syriac people? What about the other people in that list? How did they become aware of the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem it's understandable. I simply don't know who is whom. I mentioned it to 2 friends over coffee, they must have done the same. The page Talk:Syriac people was mentioned because he didn't understand how i could debate people on Wikipedia.Sr 76 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although you claimed you did not "recruit" them to the discussion, do you appreciate that this is exactly the effect it had? How will you avoid falling foul of the policy on WP:SOCK policy in future (including the WP:MEAT section therein)? What would have been a better course of action to attract the attention of editors to the discussion on Talk:Syriac people? I'm thinking we could unblock (per WP:AGF). The other editors will remain blocked and can make their own requests if they wish. Although we have no way of verifying the information you have presented, the scenario would seem to match the technical evidence that the checkuser presented. Are the other admins (Mike V, Ponyo, Kuru) okay with this approach? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: I'm slightly doubtful about the "I just mentioned it offhand and they all independently created accounts" response, however if you are willing to extend some rope then I certainly won't object as long as Sr 76 adheres strictly to a single account, avoids any canvassing, and thoroughly reviews our NPOV policy prior to editing should an unblock be granted. I'm worried by the (mis)use of "vandalize" in relation to another editor with an opposing view in the unblock request. I understand it's a volatile topic, however Sr 76 will need to keep their personal feelings in check if they want to avoid any potential edit-warring or cvility concerns (again, should they be unblocked).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all your points Ponyo (by the way, nice to meet you - I don't think we've interacted before). I myself was extremely doubtful, but at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter, if the user has learned the lesson. I conclude that this block is not preventing any disruption anymore, and will unblock shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that is what happened, although it wasn't my intention. I simply complained to a couple of friends. The outcome simply highlights how provocative this is for some people. Ok that sounds reasonable.Sr 76 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking now ... please do take all points on board and be especially careful to remain calm in what is clearly an emotional topic area for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, I will take every thing on board. It's not really emotional for me, I'm just trying to be fair.Sr 76 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Propaganda platform Wikipedia[edit]

They want to keep Syriac people as a redirect to the Assyrian people article! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_December_19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryoyo124 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing (see warnings at Talk:Assyrian people#Warning: New rules for this page). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This account was previously indeffed for sock puppetry, and unblocked in good faith after discussion and denials. I'm reinstating the indef block after obvious abusive IP socking (see for example the history of this page) during User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's block. You know how to request unblock, if you think anybody will fall for it a second time. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I think I was deceived by the wheels within wheels there; Fut Perf has explained that I made a mistake. I've reset the block to two weeks. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What now? why was i blocked? I didn't make any edits to the Assyrian People page. Sr 76 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your extensive history and the past concerns about meatpuppetry, I'd say this edit, a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, justifies the block on its own. But you also have been ceaselessly turning Wikipedia into a battleground to argue not that reliable sources support your point of view, but that you're right (and that everybody who opposes you is motivated by "politics", of course entirely unlike you). We're here to improve the encyclopedia based on what reliable sources report, not to right great wrongs. Huon (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So far as @Suryoyo124 is concerned he was involved in the discussion for about 2 months and then didn't vote. Clearly he missed the edit by Mr.Stradivarius in the large wall of a discussion, which is why i reminded him .
"not that reliable sources support my view"???
This is the world fore-most expert in the field of Syriac Studies, Oxford University Profession of Syriac Studies Dr Sebastian Brock Phd. page 68 second paragraph
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Xa1zdxyfxLYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=introduction+to+syriac+studies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t7akVLjiCqS7mAXbxoDYDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22East%20Syriac%22&f=false
Last paragraph of page 67 "with the CONJECTURE of some nineteenth century archaeologists and missionaries that the modern christian population of northern Iraq are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. This was TAKEN UP especially among people of the Church of the East".
Assyrian identity was created by the British the late part of the 19th century.
Also, all the further reading titles listed on the Assyrian People page (with 2 exceptions, the 2 being highly dubious anyway) concur with exactly what i have been writing. I have all these titles at home, please direct me to where they don't support my views.

Sr 76 (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In all seriousness, you shouldn't have made that edit. My advice is to accept that, and agree not to make similar edits in future. PhilKnight (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


Sorry the link was wrong, use this one:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Xa1zdxyfxLYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=introduction+to+syriac+studies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t7akVLjiCqS7mAXbxoDYDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=CONJECTURE&f=false
And the second paragraph on page 68
You have this all wrong. Sr 76 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Read again the principles outlined at Talk:Assyrian people#Warning: New rules for this page, and then consider which of those rules you violated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make any edits to the Assyrian People page.
The only edit i made after the 29th of December was to the Syriac People Talk Page to answer AnyHaylos about "Saggs taken out of context".
which complies with what you wrote anyway:
"The only thing everybody is expected to use the talkpage for is to discuss how this group and its history are described in high-quality, neutral reliable sources, and how the article should be changed so that it reflects those sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Saggs_taken_out_of_context
Sr 76 (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hide behind formalities. It should have been clear to you that what is disruptive on the Assyrians talkpage is equally disruptive on the Syriacs talkpage, which is about the same topic, so why argue about what page you were on? As for the content of your edit, no, you were not talking about how to correctly reflect the literature; you were arguing about what you personally think is the WP:TRUTH about the matter, and why what somebody else thought was the truth was wrong. If you genuinely can't understand the difference between doing that and doing what you ought to be doing on a Wikipedia talkpage, it will be better to keep you blocked until such time as you have understood it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight:@Fut.Perf.:Im not trying to be a wise-guy. I do want to follow policies, conduct codes and rules. I was the one that warned about that kind of discussion about this topic on the Wiki Page in the first place, and yet it is me that is accused of "creating a disturbance" and "turning Wikipedia into a battle field".
The truth is now that I have been block for last edit I am struggling to understand what an appropriate edit is. Reading the following only made it worse......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#.22If_it.27s_written_in_a_book.2C_it_must_be_true.21.22
The Saggs reference that I was writing about is a great example of "cherry picking", so I should not have identified it?
There has been plenty of talk by admin about the problems Assyrian People page, and how it needs to be cleaned up. The page is littered with of these references that have been cherry picked and if you block the people that point that out you will not be able to clean up the page.
Sr 76 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think i will just wait out the 2 weeks until the block expires and then come back to see if i can assist in cleaning up the page.Sr 76 (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]



@PhilKnight:@Fut.Perf.:
On a different and more important note when this issue is going to be dealt with? Assyrians have clearly colluded consistently from October 2006 to December 2010, please see the link provided. The dates are no coincidence either, with the voting on Wikipedia in November 2008 to remove the "Syriac People" page.
http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.95;wap2
http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.100;wap2
Voting on Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aramean-Syriac_people
This has been done with the clear intention of violating the Canvassing rules, clearly vote-stacking and Stealth Canvassing. This is the current state of Wikipeadia (Syriac People page redirecting to Assyrian People page), and this is why the content of the Assyrian People page is the way that it is
Sr 76 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]




@PhilKnight:@Fut.Perf.:
Also there is an issue with Fairness:
When Suryoyo124 used the term "Assyrian Facists" (referring to SOME Assyrian editors) - he was blocked for 2 weeks
When AynHaylo wrote "You Oromoye [Arameans] nationalists are ALL brainwashed" (referring to ALL Arameans around the world, making it a racist slur) - nothing was done about it
I am more than happy to follow the rules, but the rules have to be clear and applied fairly to everyoneSr 76 (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting to the stage where I'm considering revoking talk page access for the remainder of your block. Talk page access is given so that you can make an unblock request, not so you can continually ping the blocking and reviewing admin to persuade them to change their minds. PhilKnight (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Michael The Syrian quoting Joseaphus Page 748.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Michael The Syrian quoting Joseaphus Page 748.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

"THIS IS AMAZING. It was you and your fellow Assyrians that were quoting Brock, saying he wrote that the term Aramean really meant Aramean speaker. As soon as I suggested that you were misquoting Brock (i didn't even bother to present the quote), you turn on Brock and start questioning his credentials......?????....seriously"

There is no reason for you to lie like that. You're just being childish. Please provide a diff where I quoted Brock. My "fellow Assyrians" are not me. Shmayo (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only started criticizing Brock when I told you he was misquoted.Sr 76 (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

@Fut.Perf.: why did you block me? i was the only one making legitimate edits to the page, the others were just undoing my edits.

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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

why was I blocked? I was the only one making legitimate edits to the page, the others were just undoing my edits.

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be an accurate assessment of your actions over the last few days. I can see clear reverts at 15:24 3-29, 17:06 3-28, 10:27 3-28, 04:20 3-27, and 17:55 3-26. In fact, it's hard to spot a series of edits that does not contain a revert. It's great that you were writing up a discussion, but it may have been a sounder strategy to have done that before edit warring. Kuru (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were clearly edit-warring, just like they were, and at least some parts of your edits (such as replacing the past tense with the present tense in the defining sentence of Arameans) were certainly contentious and would have required legitimate discussion and consensus first. You have also been personally attacking other editors.
By the way, please learn to sign your posts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had written-up the discussion on the talk page, but was unable to submit it because I was blocked.....Personally attacking?Sr 76 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fut.Perf.: Then perhaps you can apply the same rules to the "Aramean People" article, that you applied to the "Assyrian People" page. Because it's obvious that blocking people doesn't resolve the issue, because someone else just takes over and does it.Sr 76 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fut.Perf.: thanks for the edits on Micheal the Syrian talk page, just one mistake. Regarding the page numbers and volumes.
1) he commissioned the monks to hand write a transcript of the original Edassean manuscript in 1899 (if i remember correctly), obviously in Syriac.
2) he then took that hand-written Syriac transcript back to France and translated it to French.

He publish the Syriac in one volume. And then he published his French translation in 3 volumes. You could not find pages 748 and 750 because you must have been looking at the French. That photograph i posted on the Assyrian People talk page of the Syriac text is from page 748. Sr 76 (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Also since you are looking at the French the big-bold numbers in the square brackets throughout some of the pages refers to the corresponding page in his Syriac publication.Sr 76 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

Sigh. I find your behaviour on Talk:Assyrian people again veering off into a lengthy debate trying to argue for the correctness of your own ideological positions regarding Assyrian/Syriac etc identities, rather than focussing on improving specific issues in the article. You know perfectly well this is not what Wikipedia is for. If it's the only thing you are interested in doing on Wikipedia, you may need to consider whether this place is right for you. For now, I've had no choice but to block you, again, this time for 2 months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about @Fut.Perf.:????

I think you have misunderstood the Section, and what I was doing.

FIRSTLY:
"focussing on improving specific issues", unlike other topics that I have provided sources for, This one is different. The other were just brief mentions in particular sections from the page. However this is INHERENT THROUGHOUT the page. This is what I have been telling you this for months.

Look at the section titled Self-designation: "At the same time historians, geographers and philosophers like Herodotos, Strabo, and Justinus mention that Assyrians were afterwards called Syrians.". My sources dealt with the Herodotos, Strabo. Justinus....I'm not sure what they are talking about.

In the history section, seems like it is now removed, the mention that Syriac is synonymous with Arameans, the region of Syria only. No mention of Mesopotamia, no mention of the change of usage of the word Syrian, no mention that Syriac was and ethnic synonym with Aramean, but just geographical.

In the references there is just Richard Frye's "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms", while the rest of the academic opinion is ignored.

MOST IMPORTANTLY
if you look back at the section "Origin's of today's Assyrian Identity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14

Where do you think these academic come up with their description of the claims of modern-Assyrian ethnicity, describing them as "hogwash" and "bogus ethnology"..etc..? It always comes down to the Synonymity of the word Syrian with Aramean. The Assyrian People page completely misrepresented it.

My own "ideological position"?? nothing i wrote had anything to do with my own ideological position, it was directly related to the sources i posted. It is not my fault that the Assyrians are so far off the mark with there claims, that when providing sources it looks like i am describing my own ideology.

The Assyrians even have a page titled "Assyrian continuity" full of complete nonsense, and you are accusing me of promoting my own "ideological position" ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_continuity

You know that if i don't explain the sources that i posted, every Assyrian will be there posting the most ridiculous unrelated information that they can get their hands on, to try to void the sources i use . e.g. The Caramalites...Sr 76 (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fut.Perf.: have you read the actual section yet? or do i need to spend my time writing up a unblock request?Sr 76 (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this is ridiculous, after spending months providing valid sources for the page. I'll rephrase that, after spending months being the ONLY PERSON providing valid sources for the page and eliminating: - Deliberately false references - Cherry-picked sentences - Misquoted manuscripts - Bias interpretations of text (the rest of the editors seem to be content with the level of Garbage present on the page)

On what grounds is this ideological? Clearly the topic is NOT ideological given the the number of academics willing to write papers about it. @Fut.Perf. completely misunderstood what i write. What is Theodor Nöldeke or Muhammad Megalommatis ideological involvement?

It is not my fault that this topic is completely lop-sided to the point that seems ideological to Wiki-Admin,

If you look back at the section "Origin's of today's Assyrian Identity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14 Where do you think these academic come up with their description of the claims of modern-Assyrian ethnicity, describing them as "hogwash" and "bogus ethnology"..etc..? It always comes down to the Synonymity of the word Syrian with Aramean. The Assyrian People page completely misrepresented this topic.

Besides where does he come up with period of 2 months, to have me blocked?

Decline reason:

The actual block reason is misusing talk pages for arguing for own views of Assyrian/Syriac identities. In your next unblock request, I suggest you address this reason. PhilKnight (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This issue unlike the others I have written about, is extremely difficult to understand. Because it covers a large time period, geographical region, cultural perspectives and all the inconsistencies come with it. I provided notes on the topic to make it as clear as possible, because I know the kind of reaction that this issue will get.

For one example - look at the multitude of responses that I got for posting sources about the Arch Bishop of Canterbury's Mission to the near east:
"Origin's of today's Assyrian Identity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14
None of the response had anything to do with the sources that I posted or even touch on the topic of the Arch Bishop and that issue was relatively simple.

That is why the section "Syrian/Syriac synonyms with Aramean - Not Assyrian", I added a dictionary definition of "etymology", a pre-reading of Rollinger/Bunnens and Notes

The several notes at the bottom were not a reflection of "my own views", they were a summary of the issue from all the sources that I listed due to the complexities of the topic. I have done this in the past in other sections I created to explain the reference I used, it was not a problem on those occasions, so why is it a problem now? Unfortunately in this topic with so many references covering a complex issue it would take forever to simplify an explanation of the sources while naming them. I have spent enough time providing sources for this page, I didn't think I need to wasted more time on the a trivial matters such as labeling each academic in the summary.

Was I justified, YES. Because if i didn't it would have lead to mass complaints and historical views based on conjecture and misinformation. I only got one response, and that didn't firm grounding. The usual trolls on the page are nowhere to be seen, and thats usually the case when the evidence is clear-cut and simple. So we didn't get a "veering off into a lengthy debate", which is the kind of nonsense I was trying to avoid.

Do you really think after writing about several topics on this page, while being completely impartial and neutral-minded i would just start to misuse the talk page for my own views????

@Fut.Perf assumed they were my views, they're not. Like I said before he misunderstood what I wrote.

Decline reason:

Upon reviewing the evidence, I agree with Fut.Perf. Max Semenik (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Maybe this needs to be reviewed by someone familiar with the issues on the page.Sr 76 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: Can I get an explanation especially since the period is so excessive? If the TOPIC is not ideological and everything I wrote about is an explanation of the sources, so where exactly is the problem? I have just been blocked for 2 months for doing the same thing I have been doing for the last 5 months.Sr 76 (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@PhilKnight: Can I get an explanation especially since the period is so excessive? If the TOPIC is not ideological and everything I wrote about is an explanation of the sources, so where exactly is the problem? I have just been blocked for 2 months for doing the same thing I have been doing for the last 5 months.

This issue unlike the others I have written about, is extremely difficult to understand. Because it covers a large time period, geographical region, cultural perspectives and all the inconsistencies come with it. I provided notes on the topic to make it as clear as possible, because I know the kind of reaction that this issue will get.

For one example - look at the multitude of responses that I got for posting sources about the Arch Bishop of Canterbury's Mission to the near east:
"Origin's of today's Assyrian Identity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14
None of the response had anything to do with the sources that I posted or even touch on the topic of the Arch Bishop and that issue was relatively simple.

That is why the section "Syrian/Syriac synonyms with Aramean - Not Assyrian", I added a dictionary definition of "etymology", a pre-reading of Rollinger/Bunnens and Notes

The several notes at the bottom were not a reflection of "my own views", they were a summary of the issue from all the sources that I listed due to the complexities of the topic. I have done this in the past in other sections I created to explain the reference I used, it was not a problem on those occasions, so why is it a problem now? Unfortunately in this topic with so many references covering a complex issue it would take forever to simplify an explanation of the sources while naming them. I have spent enough time providing sources for this page, I didn't think I need to wasted more time on the a trivial matters such as labeling each academic in the summary.

Was I justified, YES. Because if i didn't it would have lead to mass complaints and historical views based on conjecture and misinformation. I only got one response, and that didn't firm grounding. The usual trolls on the page are nowhere to be seen, and thats usually the case when the evidence is clear-cut and simple. So we didn't get a "veering off into a lengthy debate", which is the kind of nonsense I was trying to avoid.

Do you really think after writing about several topics on this page, while being completely impartial and neutral-minded i would just start to misuse the talk page for my own views????

@Fut.Perf assumed they were my views, they're not. Like I said before he misunderstood what I wrote.

Decline reason:

I think to have a realistic chance of being unblocked, you need to be willing to alter your editing habits, such as how you use talk pages. PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight: you asked me to address the use of talk pages for arguing for my own views in an unblock request, and I have. Now my unblock request is sitting here not being acknowledged? @Shmayo participated in the same discussion, and he was not blocked.Sr 76 (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


{{unblock|was this going to get looked at?}}

@Sr 76 They probably haven't read the sources or the section at the Talk page in general, otherwise they would have seen that none of the sources you posted were your own views. In the last few weeks, the "Assyrian people" article has been edited in favor of Assyrianism again and neither Future Perfect at Sunrise nor the other admins have done anything against it! --Suryoyo124 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Suryoyo124: as a result of what you have just explained I have been blocked for a ridiculous period of 2 months. Where as @Shmayo wasn't blocked at all. They are not even acknowledging the review of my block. I guess the issue of Synonymity was too close to home for some of the wiki-Admin, @Fut.Perf finally realized how wrong he had it. After all, it was @Fut.Perf that created this mess in the first place.

i have pinged @Kathovo: because he has shown an interest in this topic

And no @Future Perfect at Sunrise: this is not a witch-hunt, but more your chance to provide an actual working solution to the problem that you help create on Wikipedia based on incorrect information given to you, rather simply blocking people, that is clearly not working to resolve the issue.

This 2 month block period gave me the change to go through @Fut.Perf contribution log -

1) this is the original change request that lead to the Syriac People page being removed by @Fut.Perf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_9#Requested_move

2) Notice the change request did not involve having the Syriac People page removed

3) Notice the change request was collecting votes of support ON THE BASIS THAT THE SYRIAC PEOPLE AND CHALDEAN PEOPLE PAGES "ALREADY EXSIST"

4) Then @Fut.Perf just went and redirected the Syriac People page

11:37, 15 April 2009 (diff | hist) . . (0)? . . m Syriac people ? (Protected Syriac people: permanent POV-fork magnet ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))
11:41, 15 April 2009 (diff | hist) . . (0)? . . m Syriac Christians ? (Protected Syriac Christians: POV-fork magnet ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))
NO ONE VOTED TO HAVE THE SYRIAC PEOPLE PAGE REMOVED, @Fut.Perf JUST HAD IT REDIRECTED TO THE ASSYRIAN PEOPLE PAGE ANYWAY

5) In 2014, This is the consensus i tried to create and vote to have the Syriac People page recreated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014

6) And this was @Fut.Perf's response...."Just nuke everything and indef any account engaging in these shenanigans on sight" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&oldid=638748181#Syriac_people

@Fut.Perf can you explain what "indef any account" means? "Just nuke everything" why would you take such a hard-line position on a topic you know little about? Why would I follow the advice of other Wiki-admin and spend months collecting consensus for you to just step in with "Just nuke everything" ?
I'll write it again @Fut.Perf this is not a witch-hunt, but more your chance to provide an actual working solution to the problem that you help create on Wikipedia.

A problem that no doubt you have notice will simply not go away. In trying to fix this, you made a unilateral decision to try and remove the POV and content fork. But instead maintained the Assyria People page that is nothing but POV and removed the Syriac People page that was the real academic consensus.

@Fut.Perf the following link is response you wrote to a great comment by JeanVinelorde in 2009 about edit warring on this topic, and the edit warring is continuing still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=283985387

You can keep this long running battle going because a group of Assyrians colluded in violation of Wikipedia's policies to promote their political ideals and POV. A POV that has no proper academic backing or you can work to have a simple resolution that works for everyone. A solution that is not offensive and insulting like the one that currently sits on the Wikipedia
http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.100;wap2
"F@#king Arameans damm them all to hell." this is the supposed non-POV side of the equation that you decided to go with?

Sr 76 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random Break[edit]

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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@PhilKnight: I am more than happy to provide just sources on the talk page with NO notes and NO explanations. I can do that quite easily.

My problem is, I'm so well read on the topic including the Assyrian material, i know what they are going to reply with before they have written it.

So here is a situation that happen recently, how should i handle it without getting block?
What happens when someone provides contrary sources that are laden with bias and irrelevance (e.g Richard Frye's "the Caramalites"). I can easily ignore their responses, but then how does one go about making changes to the actual article? The usual suspects on the page, will simply claim to have provided evidence NOT to make the changes.

Look how staunchly they argued against my sources, using the below reference.
Apparently the historian Robert Biggs, explaining on page 14 that he sat down in a French deli drinking coffee in Paris. Was a reference denying that the Assyrians got their national identity from the Archbishop of Canterbury in the years after 1860AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Origin.27s_of_today.27s_Assyrian_Identity
Biggs, Robert D., "My Career in Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology" vol. 19 No. 1, 2005 p.14.

Decline reason:

You have clearly not understood the message conveyed by your being blocked, and the repeated rejections of your requests. This is NOT about whether you are right, but about your absurd walls-of-text method of trying to prove you are right. The Talk:Assyrian people is a unreadable disaster as a result. You have two simple options. You either (1) continue with these unblock requests and your talk page access will be turned off till the block expires or (2) read and understand that you are blocked because of your behaviour. Your choice Peripitus (Talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

We were asked to provide sources for the page, on the basis that the references currently used on the page were "abysmal" (I'm quoting). So now the number of sources I have provided is a problem? because it looks like a wall of text (no admin has mentioned this before)? It's not about me being right. Everyone that has looked at the page, is critical of it. Nothing if any of the page is made up of neutral/reliable academic sources.

I have already explained my willingness to provide only sources, like i have in the past, without notes and without explanation.

So when I ask @PhilKnight: a question of how I should handle this, it really is a legitimate question, to help me understand how to deal with the existing situation and help me understand my behavior that the admin are all to ready to point out.

I'm clearly going to the effort to help improve the page. When we have admin that seems like they are new to the issue, trying to come up with new ways of questioning "my behavior" it comes across as childish and disrespectful. Sr 76 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sr 76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can we get someone that knows what is going on the page, to review this unblock request? @PhilKnight: i have provided you with the explanation above.

Decline reason:

You are simply continuing your behavior on the talk page here. I am declining this and turning your talk page access off. When the block expires you are welcome to edit again but if you return to Talk:Assyrian people or Assyrian people or a similar page and continue editing and arguing the same way, you should expect to get blocked again perhaps for a longer time. Peripitus (Talk) 10:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight: You have asked to make it clear of that I am willing alter my editing habits, I think I have done that, above.

help with sources[edit]

Further information: Help:Find sources
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -Assyrian
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Syriac
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL- Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans
--Moxy (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This search of Assyrian does not differencate between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Assyrians, and Assyrian can be a reference to an EmpireSr 76 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you ran the search in that way means you are not clear on the situation. It is quite complicated. Please read the proposal it makes it a little bit clearer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Edit_Request_on_25_June_2015 Sr 76 (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to use any search parameters you like.see {{Find sources}}-- Moxy (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you are free to search for what ever you like. And when the pages are structured to refer to the ancient peoples...and the Assyrian People page encapsulates the modern Assyrians,the modern Arameans, and the modern Chaldeans. search results like the ones above are not reflective of the issue since the issue is pertaining to the Assyrian people page.

Sr 76 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian people article[edit]

Fut.Perf. has closed the request move and the result is "Not moved". "The main proponent (Sr 76) has brought forward numerous citations, but they all appear to be geared towards debating the tired old ideological issue of the factual correctness of Assyrian "continuity", rather than present-day naming practices." I disagree with him on that nonsense claim. You have provided plenty of academic sources in English about the common appellation regarding the Christian period of Syriac Christians (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Maronites etc.), which is undeniable Syriacs or Syriac people. Fut.Perf. should give sources that the appellation "Assyrians" for the Christian period is the common appellation in "present-day naming practices" in English. Then you gave sources about the usage of the appellation Suryoye/Suraye or Syriacs for both Assyrians and Arameans, which forms the common appellation for them and none of them can reject this appellation. Moreover, you provided reliable sources about the disputed appellation Assyrians for Syriac Christians, and which problems occur by using this appellation for people like Ephrem the Syrian.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to lodge a complaint with admin Fut.Perf. on English Wikipedia? Fut.Perf. cannot be the only admin on Wikipedia, and the best would be to point out his misadministration on this topic and which effects this has on credibility of Wikipedia. I haven't seen any other admins on this topic, except only for Fut.Perf.. This is exactly what I have criticized before you submit your request for the move of the title. I was even more appalled, when I knew that he is more than six years involved into this topic. Do you remember the discussion back in December 2014 and how biased the "Assyrian people" article was with all the Assyrian POV propaganda? Where was Fut.Perf. and why didn't he do anything against it? He has blocked everyone, who have pointed out this issue and opened Pandora's box. I'm not sure, if he is aware of that. It seems like that he does not even want to answer your question regarding Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is the possibility to lodge a complaint with a Wikipedia administrator on German Wikipedia. The red bordered box says in English: "Please note: On this page only complaints about administrators are treated, who have misused or incorrectly used or threatened other users with the misuse of their extended rights."

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme --Suryoyo124 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship--Suryoyo124 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll take the issue to dispute resolution.Sr 76 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryoyo124:For some reason he went and locked the Assyrian Continuity page, like that is the fountain of knowledge, that needed to be preserved. I couldn't even notice anything that would warrant the page being locked.Sr 76 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sr 76: I think another administrator should ckeck Fut.Perf., because this is getting suspicious in my opinion. First he eliminate the Syriac people article and everything else from Wikipedia and gave the way free for obvious POV editing, e.g. Assyrian Continuity. Now he is protecting a POV article for one year without a valid reason? I wouldn't do any further edits and wait what other administrators have to say about Fut.Perf..--Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryoyo124: I have placed the Move request to be reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review#Assyrian_people Sr 76 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful[edit]

"And if I see any more of this kind of revert-warring on this page, I'll hand out blocks starting from two months in duration. Final warning." Isn't that a clear sign of misuse by threating other users with his extended rights? I wouldn't start a discussion with him with the risk to be blocked again. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles for Arameans and Assyrians[edit]

Hi Sr 76,

I think (as a result of what I read in the discussion there is no way for simple umbrella term for the Syriac Christions within the Mideast without nationalistic views, that is why on second thought I did not vote, because either way would favor Assyrian or Aramean views and it will not be a simple neutral term) that the only way to stop the Assyrian nationalist views (or the Aramean nationalist views) is to have TWO separate articles for 1) Arameans and 2) Assyrians (as they already have) but the Assyrian people's page has to be completely cleaned from any connections with the Arameans (or Ancient Aramea), the people West of Euphratus. And the redirect Arameans in Syria has to be developed fully in order to balance the article about Assyrians in Syria because currently there is no mention of any Arameans living in Syria. And this one needs redevelopment Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea.

I think that's the only solution:
TWO separate articles for 1) Arameans and 2) Assyrians.
What is your opinion about that?

MaronitePride (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Assyrian people's page has to be completely cleaned from any connections with the Arameans (or Ancient Aramea), the people West of Euphratus" Seriously, MaronitePride? You don't seem to be familiar with this issue. What you suggest is exactly what Assyrian propaganda intends, namely to deny the ethnic connection between Syriac Christians from Mesopotamia with the Arameans. "the people West of Euphratus" I'm not sure what makes you think that Arameans are only limited to the West of Euphratus. English people are only limited to the British Isles and have never migrated outside of this place and by doing this spread their language around the world? Aramean kingdoms like Bit Zamani or Bit-Bahiani, which were located in the East of Euphratus, the deportation of hundreds of thousand Arameans within the heartland of the Assyrian empire and the battles between Assyrians and Arameans in Mesopotamia don't show any physical presence of Aramean people? I've read this wrong Information several times on Wikipedia. Seems like that Assyrian POV has worked just fine for people like you, MaronitePride. One of our ancestors like Mar Jacob of Edessa, who died in 708 A.D., said:"Ho hokuth hnan Oromoye awkith Suryoye", which means "It in the same way also we the Arameans, that is to say the Syrians". (Jacques des Edesse, Scolie, dans Patrologie Orientalis.T.29,1960 P.196) These are the own words of one of our ancestors more than 1,000 years ago regarding our ethnicity. However, there is an ethnicity conflict among us Mesopotamian Syriac Christian, where some say they are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians and the others say they are the descendants of the Arameans. The only term that unites us is in fact Syriac or Suryoye/Suraye, because this is the term we all used before nationalism started and it describes our Syriac Christian heritage. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't seem to be familiar with this issue." As a Lebanese Maronite that is normal not to be fully familiar with the issue at stake. Most of Lebanese Maronites are not at all knowledgeable or interested in the issue, I am actually an exception to have interest in the Aramean/Assyrian issues ;) but I acquired some knowledge mostly through some friends that belong to one of these groups (I know how Arameans or Assyrians get angry when the issue is mentioned) and reading beyond Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I am not that knowledgeable as you Arameans/Assyrians are on the issue.
"I'm not sure what makes you think that Arameans are only limited to the West of Euphratus." It mainly based on my personal encounters with individuals from these areas. Mainly because all the Iraqi Christians or the people "East of Euphrates" (this term "East or West of is Euphrates" is strange to me but is employed very often in the angry debates that I witnessed in real life, Wikipedia and throughout internet) that I know identify as Assyrians or Chaldeans but no one as Aramean. On the other hand, all the Christians from Syria (except the Hassake area) or the people "West of Euphrates" that I know identify as Arameans or Syriacs but no one as Assyrian or Chaldean.
"What you suggest is exactly what Assyrian propaganda intends, namely to deny the ethnic connection between Syriac Christians from Mesopotamia with the Arameans." And "The only term that unites us is in fact Syriac or Suryoye/Suraye, because this is the term we all used before nationalism started and it describes our Syriac Christian heritage." If you check the discussion on the Talk:Assyrian people page you will see that I supported the umbrella term Syriac people (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans) in the comments but decided not to vote on the issue as a result of what I read in the discussion there that these is no way for simple umbrella term for the Syriac Christians within the Mideast without nationalistic views, that is why on second thought I did not vote, because either way would favor Assyrian or Aramean views and it will not be a simple neutral term. Also, I think if possible, the umbrella term page Syriac people (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans) has to be a new page/article because the current situation is either all Syriac people become Assyrians only or all Syriac people become Arameans only. Therefore, currently there is no neutral page/article where all the groups distinct or not to be included together without one side to prevail. (Possibly the only neutral article is Terms for Syriac Christians.) MaronitePride (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MaronitePride "Mainly because all the Iraqi Christians...that I know identify as Assyrians or Chaldeans but no one as Aramean." True, that's because the majority of Iraqi Syriac Christians belong to the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church, where probably 99% don't identify as Arameans. The majority of Syriac Christians who identify as Arameans are

adherents of the Syriac-Orthodox Church. Most Syriac Christians in Turkey and those who live near the border between the Syria and Turkey are Syriac-Orthodox Christians. "On the other hand, all the Christians from Syria (except the Hassake area)...that I know identify as Arameans or Syriacs..." My family are Syriac-Orthodox Christians from Hassake and lived near the border between the Syria and Turkey and identify as Arameans. I know that there are also Syriac Christians from the Assyrian Church of the East near the Khabur River. You mentioned that you know people who identify as Arameans. Do you know to which church those people belong to?--Suryoyo124 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will struggle to get the 2 articles. they will just keep voting against it. Sr 76 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryoyo124: @MaronitePride: we need to find some newspaper sources and TV news material from isreal, lebanon and about Malaula of the term Aramean.Sr 76 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryoyo124: @MaronitePride: how did we go?Sr 76 (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sr 76: I've tried to find newspaper sources and TV news material primarily in English, but it's very limited especially about the Aramean community in Ma'loula, who are simply called "Aramaic-speaking people" or "Christians" like most other Christians in the Middle East. You would probably have more sources in other languages, such as Arabic, German or Hebrew unlike in English, but English Wikipedia only accept sources in English, if I am not mistaken. Prof. Dr. Werner Arnold is an expert in Western Neo-Aramaic, who lived among the Arameans in Ma'loula, Bakh'a and Jubb'adin and studied their dialect. On his website he uses the term Arameans maybe he can provide even more sources since he is most likely fluent in both Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic and knows the the self-designation of these people better than most of us. But admins like Future Perfect at Sunrise revealed their true face and don't care about neutrality and reliable sources. I am wondering, why English Wikpedia works totally different compared to other Wikipedia sites, such as German Wikipedia on this topic. Why not creating an Aramean continuity claim or Aramean nationalism article in contrast to Assyrian continuity and Assyrian nationalism or even Phoenicianism articles? What would speak against such articles as long as they are filled up with reliable and neutral sources, and you have provided plenty of them.

http://www.rahim.eu/maaloula/theaseren.html http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/ori/semitistik/nwalit_en.html --Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sr 76:

I found some other TV documentation and news, where they use Arameans, but it's all in Arabic. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015

@Suryoyo124:@MaronitePride: Help me establish consensus, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arameans#Edit_requestSr 76 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael the Syrian[edit]

Category:Syriac people is currently a redirect to Category:Syrian Christians. That's the only change I made. I saw no need to note it on the talkpage as the category is a redirect. If it's problematic go ahead and revert - it's no skin off my nose. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian people article[edit]

@Sr 76: It's hopeless and I am kinda shocked about the way English Wikipedia works! They want the term Assyrians for Arameans and redirect them to the Assyrian people article!? Fine, I added the "Assyrians" from Maaloula to the article and removed some of the Assyrian POV's. Prof. Dr. Werner Arnold will probably have more Information about the Arameans from Maaloula, which we could add to the Assyrian people article as well. I suggest to work with the Assyrians people article for the moment, and create an Aramean continuity claim or Aramean nationalism article and relate it to the Assyrian people article similar to what they did with the Assyrian continuity and Assyrian nationalism articles, which would be legitimate and we could also accommodate the sources to the articles which specifically deal with these topics, because if you would put statements like the one from Saint Ephrem the Syrian about the Arameans, e.g. into the Syriac Christianity article, it would be a much easier target for nationalism driven Assyrians to falsify and remove the content then. Most readers aren't stupid and will notice the anomaly they've created (admins and Assyrian nationalists) and will ask for clarification, which might result in seperate logical articles to have an overview without getting lost (See how German Wikipedia handle this issue. It's by far the best most logical). Thanks to the stubbornness of Penguins53 and 'AynHaylo and other Assyrians, the Assyrian term will be meaningless by accommodating Aramean content and removing Assyrian POV's, which is expressly willed by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Most Assyrian Wikipedians won't be amused and maybe they'll be willing to cooperate next time. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

I have blocked both participants of the recent bout of reverting on Assyrian people, you for 3 months, Penguin indef. Penguin was reverting without participating on talk; I find your behaviour slightly less bad, since at least you did show up on the talkpage; however, during all these weeks that I've been following this issue, I've still not seen you making concrete, constructive proposals for actually improving the article – the only thing you appear to be wanting to do is deleting entire sections, again and again. This is a pity, because (as I think I've said before) I find it rather obvious that the article is in fact quite tendentious (in the pro-"Assyrian" direction) and badly in need of a rewrite. I was still hoping you would contribute something to that, but apparently you lack the will or the skills. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I asked you a number of times to intercede so @shamyo's reverting would not take place, i waited a long period for you to do this before applying the changes. Changes in accordance to the talk page, and hence the rules.

How are you supposed to "contribute" to the page while there is so much conflicting text??????????? I have been arguing for the removal of the history section because you will no longer have this conflict. Since the page is called Assyrian people then should that be the focus, not history because after all it is history where the conflict is.

Rather then blocking me, why don't you ask @Shamyo and @Penguins53 that want that section in place, to provide sources????? You blocked me for wanting to remove a section of the page that is poorly sourced????

You need to break it down before rebuilding it, otherwise, you will then turn around and call it a POV-fork.

I explained why i want the section deleted, YOU didn't object. The ones that objected offered no reason, so why am I blocked? I was the only one with a valid argument. Sr 76 (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: @penguins53 was only following @shamyo's example.....why wasn't @shamyo blocked he did the exact same thing? @shmayo is the same guy that formed a posse on the Assyrian Voice forum to corrupt Wikipedia with this politically drive Assyrian-POV. again he is left untouched by you. Sr 76 (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: has your solution of blocking everything with a pulse improved the page yet?Sr 76 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I can stop people from editing disruptively, but I can't force them to edit constructively. If there's nobody willing and able to make constructive contributions, the article will remain a mess. There's nothing I can do about that. You, for one, certainly don't seem to have been attempting to make any constructive contributions for the last several years. You are still welcome to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: you still don't seem to understand the scope of the problem you have created. Let me simplify this for you: THE SOURCES DON'T EXIST. How are you going to improve a page that has been identified as having problematic references, when the terminology that you have bound everyone to...Assyrian...has no sources to back it up? You want the contributors to change the academic works to accommodate a political agenda that you @Future Perfect at Sunrise: stumbled your way into? Do you want contributors to change the sources and the academic views to match the ill-informed decision that you made? Is Wikipedia an Encyclopedia or a parody site like "The Onion"? Sr 76 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: No response? "Constructive editing" cant occur for the reasons i have described above. You were also not willing to look at other solutions, you seem to be driven by the change the you made unilaterally several years ago. After several years, by your own admission the page is still a mess. Isn't time you rolled back the bad choice that you made?
You made the choice of redirecting Syriac People to Assyrian People Page without a vote. But you require a vote to change it back to the fairer terminology? Even after it was demonstrated to you that the page is being controlled and voted on, by a group of Assyrian nationalists from the Assyrian Voice Forum. Proven sock-puppetry and collusion, in complete violation of Wikipedia Rules. How are you going to improve the page, after it was proven to you that this collusion is still taking place?
when i identified the Syriac in the opening line is incorrect: "Assyrian people (Syriac: ܐܫܘܪܝܐ‎)", this issue had already been discussed on the talk page and then corrected. It was then rolled back, without any mention on the talk page, in violation to YOUR rules. When i spotted this happening I brought it up, you did nothing about it. So this "Constructive editing" is not possible, if changed it back to the correct word in Syriac, you would block me edit warring. Right?
You ignore the complaint and then you block people from making the change. The page is a mess because you made it a mess.Sr 76 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean article[edit]

Would you like to participate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard --Optra2021 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Optra2021: The admins have closed the talk.Sr 76 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sr 76: Hello  Sr 76, please go to the Aramean talk page, if you want to join the discussion, where Mugsalot opened another RFC. --Optra2021 (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sr_76&oldid=1142806112"