User talk:Garzo/archive/2007-05-23-2007-11-23

---

Image:User-Garzo-topper.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:User-Garzo-topper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mandaic

Sorry I think I made a mistake! Please feel free to revert my edit. I fact I didn't notice the difference between Modern and Classical Mandaic .In southern Iraq Mandaic is used only as a liturgical language and according to my knowledge only certain class in the Mandaic society can speak it (people from that class do not get married from the other class/es in the Mandaic society). Since Mandaic is a Semitic language and very close to Arabic compared to other languages Modern Mandaeans speak Arabic in their daily life. I think this website is usefull for you if you can understand Arabic [1](you can read the English section but I think the Arabic section has got more information). And this article is written by a Mandaic researcher about the roots of Mandaic language [2]. Best regards--Aziz1005 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like, after skimming through the Arabic of the Mandaean Union site, that it is mostly dealing with the classical, liturgical language, and that Iraqi Mandaeans speak Arabic. Modern Mandaic is quite distinct from the classical language, and is only spoken by a handful of Mandaeans around Ahvaz. There have been occaisional reports of Neo-Mandiac speakers in the US, but that all seems to be hearsay. I'll try to refactor the article so that it's clear that the article deals with two related but different languages, and note where each is spoken. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

anti-vandalism

top work on repairing the Everton FC page RoyalBlueStuey 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenian language page

Please reply my message in the talk, Thank you. 75.28.37.201 00:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reporting

you are free to report. You can go ahead.Must.^{T C} 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has indeed had a string of vandalisms on Armenian and Greek related articles, removing references to genocide. I will post on the notice board on this character.

In the meantime, I am wondering if you can protect and mediate the Church of Kish page, as though I feel I am being unfairly treated by the gang there. I would appreciate your time greatly. Sincerely, Hetoum I 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Would you be specific about the 'cleanup' of the Imette St. Guillen reference? I was in the process of editing that page when I saw your post. - MurderWatcher1 on Friday, June 8, 2007 4:43 p.m. EST.

It quite clearly needs to be conformed to general Wikipedia standards. For starters, only the article title on its first mention should be bold. See WP:MOS for details. — Gareth Hughes 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

well

Thank you for warning me but its my page so ill do as i wish with it. Ill leave the stuff thats on here but dont EVER threaten me again.TheManWhoLaughs 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, policy says [official warnings from user talk pages is deprecated]: don't do it. I'm not threatening you, I'm warning you. You'll get a final warning. If you continue I shall block you for 24 hours. If you return to the same behaviour pattern you get a longer block. It'll happen so start being nice to other users and respecting the rules. — Gareth Hughes 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, I was looking up at the wiki page on my school, which is wierd, and I saw what I think was vandalism. On the page John Paul II Catholic High School and I though I saw some vandalism. Under the mission statement it says:

It is the mission of John Paul II Catholic High to provide an affordable kindergarten curriculum within a Christ-centered Catholic environment. This mission encompasses the education of the whole person--spirit, mind, and body--but in reality fails to give respect to its own students.

When in reality, the mission statement is:

It is the mission of John Paul II Catholic High to provide an affordable college preparatory curriculum within a Christ-centered Catholic environment. This mission encompasses the education of the whole person--spirit, mind, and body--within the tradition of the Catholic Church.

It seems the ip who edited this is 68.84.30.147. I have reverted the vandalism, but I ask that you block the ip. Thank you Sith Penguin Lord 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maronite

Hi Garzo. Yes this material was on another page, "Maronite people". Thanks. Nochi 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maronite people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created on 11 June. I'll fix its spelling mistakes. — Gareth Hughes 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Further Vandalism

Hello again. I'm still learning Wikipedia and am learning from the edits that ImmortalGoddezz has performed to the "Imette St. Guillen" page which I try to update almost daily. Yesterday, someone had put in a comment (that you deleted, thank you) to the history edits page of Imette St. Guillen. I don't know who this cracker is (I have a suspicion) but the I.P. address, which is 38.117.139.174 appears before my login of MurderWatcher1. It appears that this person put in a phrase in the history section. From my discussions with the network administrator here in my firm, it might be someone whom I work with; I forgot to lock-up my computer yesterday and from what I understand, everyone here may have the same I.P. address, but not my login and password. I'm pretty embarassed so please understand that I didn't make this edit. I would appreciate it if you would look into this matter and please remove the phrase "whose greatest fan is Chris Mangan" from all of the edits. Thank you. A few more questions if I may. I'm wondering if I can upload a PDF copy of the "A Night For Imette" fundraiser which I had attended last year? The PDF would help to further document the scholarship creation in her name at Boston Latin High School. On another matter, I had created the "Fountain Avenue", the "Ramona Moore" page and I'm trying to add to those webpages as well. I had taken a panoramic digital picture of Fountain Avenue but the file size is 25MB. Can this be viewed on Wikipedia? FYI, I had become involved in Imette's case last year. Any suggestions that you can give me would be greatly appreciated, thank you. --MurderWatcher1 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No interest to the external links

Why is it spamming? Please explain. Are the external links irrelvant to the pages of the languages? For a reader to the page, they want to know more information. Why are the external links inappropriate? Gaia2767spm 15:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The policies here are WP:EL, Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Addition of the same external link to a large number of pages is considered to be an indication of a conflict of interest, that however relevant the site might be, the user is using Wikipedia to publicise that site. Using Wikipedia to publicise a site is considered to be spamming. Whereas the addition of one or two relevant links to a site from different articles is acceptible, when it becomes clear that the number of links is for the purpose of increasing traffic to that site. I suggest you limit the number of links to those articles immediately relevant — e.g. I bet you site has nothing useful to say on Sogdian language, so don't link from that article, to do so would be misleading. — Gareth Hughes 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry because really don't know that policies and what the spam page is talking about. Thx for explanation. So the next time to limit the external links to 1-2 most appropriate pages only. Gaia2767spm 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Would like to have the external links in PIE language, for the texts and glossaries, any problem?Gaia2767spm 16:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that would be appropriate. — Gareth Hughes 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Much thx. Know more about the wikipedia policy now.Gaia2767spm 23:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Block question

I'm handling the unblock request for Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can you clarify whether this block is regarding the recent comments (last four days) on Talk:Başkale and dialog on Meowy's talk page or stretchs back to something earlier?--Chaser - T 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave the last warning after he made a personal attack against another user on Talk:Başkale. He had previously been involved in personal attacks on Talk:Turkish Van. Meowy's response to my warning was to make offensive remarks about me (some of which the user removed from their talk page). Whether directed towards me or another user, Meowy continued to make personal attacks after receiving a warning. Following the principle that harassment should be dealt with promptly for the benefit of the community. Following an earlier block of 24 hours for 3RR, I gave the second block for 48 hours. I think it's clear that Meowy has a history of edit warring and vicious comments. I feel it's appropriate to give a strong message that such behaviour is not tolerated on Wikipedia. — Gareth Hughes 21:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I gave up on you and didn't notice the response until I'd already declined the unblock request. I declined the request and affirmed the block just based on the recent stuff. If an editor responds to warnings from an administrator with more personal attacks, I don't have much tolerance for it.--Chaser - T 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ernest renan was no a racist!

hello mister garret hughes: Dunno if I can call you a Brother in Christ( and if you can get offended because it), if you are a John Stott anglican, or a Stephen Sizer anglican (http://www.moriel.org/israel/stephen_sizer.htm), although I must to remember Stott endorse to Sizer. By now just remember Islam are no a race, it`s a religion. To signal faults in muslims-a religion - is no identical to be a racist. It`s a fair critique from religion.

And if the comments are right, as is the case with Renan`s opinions it is even more so.

True Racism is to display hatred toward arabs, kurdish, iranians or turkish; as the famous column in Babil newspaper in Iraq devoted to insult Iranians, or the cartoons in Iranians newspapers calling to Azeris "cockroaches" . Or calling to australian, venezuelan, american, british and swedish women, -even teenagers- "harlots who must to be ... by muslims machos", as in various different incidents happened round the world, between them the infamous sermons by mullah Omar Abdel Rahman. I recommend you to buy the film "Lé Destin" by pro-palestinian atheist activist Youssef Chahine on topic "Islam and Science". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 June 2007.

Please read my comment on the article's talk page. You appear not to understand what the article is saying. — Gareth Hughes 18:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

To tell me, to work only in other languages was a rude comment, mister Hughes. The problem is "discredited maverick" is an offensive term and point of view. And to denounces Renan as a protonazi, believing in European racial superiority is simply false. Read the authors themselves, nobody used that phrase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 June 2007.

Yes, it is rude, but it is your mistaken reading of the text that is causing the problem. The text is about the analysis of Said's critics on his work: it isn't directly about Said or Renan. Added to this, your arguments on the talk page make very little sense. If you do not understand the language of the article, and I cannot understand you writing English, what else can I do but tell you that you might be better working a language in which you're more proficient? — Gareth Hughes 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact here is: I will delete any reference to Renan as a "discredited maverick". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 June 2007.

Declaring refusal to work with other Wikipedians is not a good idea. Have you not noticed that the text has changed? If so you are blindly reverting me. You should be discussing the issue on the article talk page rather than constantly reverting. — Gareth Hughes 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

help me with christian palestinians

help me with edits

help me with formatting christian palestinian edits

hello reverend Gareth, I am tioeliecer, I had info. to add to article, but because I access through cybercafe, I hadn´t enough time to edit my contributions. Help me with this: A Gaza Baptist Church Seized by terrorists: link: http://www.comeandsee.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=781

Palestine: Palestinian gunmen burn Qalqiliya YMCA http://www.comeandsee.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=768

Palestine: Bible Society library bombed in Gaza : link:http://www.comeandsee.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=796 And on a reported dead link: change this: 17^ Five churches bombed and attacked AP via Yahoo! News 16 September 2006 (Link dead as of 15 January 2007) for this http://www.comeandsee.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=769 Palestinian muslims demonstrate in support from Bible Socity work in Gaza: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/palestinian.muslims.protest.against.bible.society.bombing.in.gaza/10701.htm http://www.biblenetworknews.com/europe_middleeast/103100_israel.html

You can add these links as references/sources: http://www.christianzionists.org -a website by Sizer against this ideology- http://www.religioustolerance.org/ata01.htm http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/palestinian-christians-being-persecuted-versus-real-christian-persecution/

My personal background is: I`m an evangelical, no a zionist,. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 June 2007.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. — Gareth Hughes 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

you wrote: "I am most interested in working on articles about language and linguistics, and religion and spirituality", in your profile, you appears to be concerned with islam-related articles. This is my reason to select you as collaborator in article on christians in palestine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2007.

What is it you are wanting to do? — Gareth Hughes 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

according you:

nothing can be said against muslims?. islam is a race?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 June 2007.

Of course, I never said this or anything like it. You appear to be having difficulty with two-way communication. — Gareth Hughes 09:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Allah as a name of or ref to God

Hi, thanks for your service to the "Free Engcyclopedia", please see the talkpage of Allah and discuss. This should be a topic of interest to you. ephix 20:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A detailed analysis of your hypothesis has been given at Talk:Allah. — Gareth Hughes 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for refraining from WP:BITE, im preparing a repsonse. ephix 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83

Hi,

I've already reported her for WP:3RR, which she carries on, along with edit warring, personal attacks (OK< toned down since I warned her on that), and deleting sourced info. Could you do something (preferably block?) Bouha 13:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to be showing quite a few bad habits — edit warring and blanking warnings — if this user calms down and engages in fruitful discussion, we might get somewhere. A block might be counter-productive. — Gareth Hughes 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the latter: this user has carried on reverting having had two [[WP:3RR] warnings, both of which have been deleted, I think at least once. There's also evidence that this person was blocked from editing from an IP (see the complaint on the 3RR noticeboard for details). Anyway, it's up to you, I'm just puzzled by the assertion of counterproductivity. Bouha 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like others have escalated the problem and the user has not edited for 18 minutes. It looks like the problem originated from a genuine difference of opinion over an article or two. — Gareth Hughes 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Collounsbury, along with two other users (Bouha and Lonewolf BC), one of which has already been warned by another admin, keep reverting a page that I only added annotated evidence to. I keep asking them to explain what they find so objectionable about annotated evidence derived from the sources cited on the article, but they have yet to answer me. Instead, they keep resorting to personal insults that basically amount to biting, as I am a newcomer (3rd or 4th day). Since it's only my third day, I am not yet familiar with all the rules. I tried to be civil at first, but they kept reverting the pages and insulting me as a person. I admit I overreacted after a while, but only because my edits were being reverted unfairly. What is wrong with annotated evidence? as in numbers. The additions that I made were objective, FACTUAL and neutral. The page that I am referring to is called- Berber people. While I understand that consensus is imp, and I did try to reach an agreement at first, I believe accuracy and objectivity surpass it in importance. I'm really not sure what the problem is. It is not as if I added subjective material.. Mariam83 14:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have already said, there are problems on all sides. Do not remove warnings from your talk page — it's like running from the scene of a crime. Refrain from editing the articles, and engage in genuine discussion on the article talk pages. If you present good arguments, other users will side with you. If you feel that you are being mistreated, tell someone, but do not carry on as if you have a right to be right. — Gareth Hughes 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Mariam83 might have been reincarnated as User:Khalidmn. Any way you could check this out (I've opened up a supsected sockpuppet case)? Thanks for checking back last time to see what was happening. Bouha 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

o.k. I was exxagerating here

I`m so sorry, but your use from ironic language toward me disturbes me. I promises never more to uses that term.

But the article is propaganda, it tries to proves :

Edward Said was a serious scholar. Him was nothing from it. The article tries to downplay critiques (and critics) toward him. It`s absurd to term him "a metanationalist humanist" and a "militant nationalist". He appears in the list from proposers from a binational state, and two states solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 June 2007.

if islam is no a race

why a man attacking muslims is called a racist? why you edit EVERY article on islam and muslims, gives rude and ironic response to somebody criticizing to muslims? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 June 2007.

Tioeliecer, your comments come after you perpetrated a very serious personal attack against me. I have struggled to come to terms with understanding your poor English (good English is pretty much a requirement here, but there are other Wikipedias for different languages) and your inability thereby to understand what articles are saying. I have not called anyone a racist, but have quoted Renan's own words to suggest that his views on race on widely rejected today. I do not edit 'EVERY' article on Islam and Muslims, but should be free so to do. If I have appeared rude and ironic to you, it is because you have repeatedly presented poorly written and spurious arguments for your edits. Use the article talk pages for comments on articles, do not harass me or other users and learn to sign your posts. — Gareth Hughes 16:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded a PDF - for 'Imette St. Guillen' Page

Hello, Garzo. I'm wondering if a PDF that I created from the Fundraiser in her honor can be put as a link onto the 'Imette St. Guillen' page, please? I uploaded same before signing this post. Thank you for any help.--MurderWatcher1 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is what the image name-space is for, and I'm not sure whether the brochure would be considered encyclopaedic — a somewhat subjective term, I grant you. Try adding it to the article and see if you get any comments from others. — Gareth Hughes 00:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth. Well, I've uploaded it three times now. It appears to work.--MurderWatcher1 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mahdi Reverts

Hey, I'm glad to see someone else pulling out these links, I was worrying that I'd run into the 3RR for my troubles. Isn't there some way we could list unreliable sources so that a bot could just whisk them out automatically? Or something, anything. Over in the articles on Chinese history it's not such a problem, but these Islamic articles are so packed with blogs and webpages run by who-knows-what group or people that it's a mess. Elijahmeeks 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Created Chanel Petro-Nixon Page - Questions

Hello again, Gareth. I created a page for Chanel Petro-Nixon today but I'm still researching her case, etc. Two prompts appeared right after I created the new Wikipedia reference. Am I doing this OKAY? It will take me time to research her life and murder and I'm wondering if there is a policy about this on Wikipedia, as well as time limits on page creation.

"Christian arabs"

Hi. Could you please stop enforcing the category "Christian arabs" on non arabic Christians living in the middle east? This is wrong. We middle-eastern Christians, though not arabs, have gone through Arabization, and that needs to stop. We are not arabs. We have our own ethnicity, and we shouldn't be forced to be called "Christian arabs". If a Christian European is born in the middle east, should he be called a "Christian arab" because of that reason alone? Please understand, they are Syriac Christians (i.e. of Assyrian ancestry), and most of them speak Aramaic, though a lot of them are forgetting it. As someone who speaks Aramaic, you should respect this fact, and not appease muslims who want to call everyone arabs just because they're in the middle east. We are not closely related to the arabs from Saudiarabia. We have our own ethnicity, please stop forcing upon us some alien arab ethnicity. That's oppression. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:17 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

You removed it from a number of articles, I put it back with good reasons. I think the word 'enforcing' is a bit strong for that. That's the word you started with; you end with 'oppression', another strong word. You are taking this personally — noting the 'we' — and that may not be a good thing. Ethnicity in the Middle East is a very complicated issue, and many Melkites in the Middle East do consider themselves to be Arab. It is not 'Muslim propaganda' that they be called Arab. If anything, it's propaganda to equate Arab with Muslim. There is an important history of Arab Christians, which many Melkites and Rum Orthodox consider to be their heritage. To not let them express that would be, in your words 'oppression'. What exactly is your background? Because it seems that you are doing the usual Assyrian Revisionist thing of extending some idea of ethnicity (this article makes an interesting read) to as many Middle-East Christians as poosible. — Gareth Hughes 10:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Assyrian. I'm not into Assyrian revisionism (if such topic exists). If they are not Arabs, why call them Christian Arabs? In the case of Maronites, it's true that they have some Arab background, but that's very little. Yes, I take this personally. So would you if you would've been called Arab just because you came from a region that had been subjugated by Arabs. In the case of Melkites, they are of Greek ancestry, and perhaps a little bit Assyrian ancestry. Why call them Arabs? Yes, they probably don't speak Greek any longer, but that doesn't make them Arabs. Equating islam with Arabs is not propaganda at all. Islam's very founder was an Arab, and it's indisputable that the majority of all Arabs are muslims. How is that propaganda? Look, let me tell you something about religion in the middle-east: we are ethnoreligious. That means, we marry people of the same faith. Sure, there are some rare cases where muslims and christians marry, but it's far from the de facto standard. That said, the ethnicity has been largely well preserved in the middle-east. Now please, stop calling non-arabs Arabs. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:57 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

If they have Arabic as their first language than they Arabs, if not then they are not. Please refer to Defining who is an Arab for further details. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, EliasAlucard is calling Melkites 'of Greek ancestry'. The only real reason anyone can give for that is that some of their ancestors wrote in Greek, which was common in the large cities of the region until the seventh century. As usage of Greek died out, it was replaced by Arabic. For some people, speaking Arabic makes one an Arab — as FayssalF has pointed out. Now, I don't believe that. However, there are records of many Christians from Arabia moving to Syria and Egypt during the eighth century. Many Melkites do consider Arabian Christians to be part of their heritage. I think it would be good to hear what some Melkites think about this. However, I am aware that those who identify as Assyrians, especially those in diaspora, are campaigning to include as many Christians in the Middle East under that flag for political reasons. I think that's quite obvious and difficult to deny. — Gareth Hughes 11:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

More ad hominem attacks on my character. Believe me, anyone who isn't Assyrian, I do not wish to call him/her Assyrian. It's not a campaign. If someone is Assyrian, he should be called Assyrian. Period. Being able to speak Arabic does not make you an Arab. Ethnicity isn't defined by the language you speak (though, that is an important part, it's not the crucial way to define ethnicity). For instance, I speak Arabic, still, I am not an Arab. I am Assyrian, and I refuse to deny my ancestry, and I refuse to claim to be something I'm not. Melkites (the very word has Aramaic roots), are not Arabs and shouldn't be called Arabs. Also, you resort to personal attacks and falsely accuse me of "Assyrian revisionism". That's a strong word. Let me tell you something, to claim that all Christians from the middle east are Arabs, that's, if anything, Arab revisionism, and you know it. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

It isn't ad hominem. You brought your own ethnicity into this. I'm pointing out that it isn't subjective. You really have to keep your cool. — Gareth Hughes 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it cool guys. I believe both of you are right. What about "Arabized Syriac Christians"? Elias, please note that neither you nor anyone is sure if all these Christians have not been mixed w/ Arabs. I am saying this because i am well aware of a somehow similar situation in the Maghreb in general and Morocco in particular where many Berbers were mixed w/ Arabs and it became very hard to distinguish a Berber from an Arab in many cases. Many Moroccans refered to as Arabs are of Berber origins in fact. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

BCP

Dear Mr. Hughes, I am a little unclear as to why such attention is being paid to the definite article in the headings. That gentleness which characterises good faith seems to be lacking. It may be that you have discovered a WP policy on the matter, but your use of words like 'mess' earlier puzzle me. Roger Arguile 10:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I believe there to be two issues here. The first is outlined in the Manual of Style: 'articles (a, an, and the) are typically avoided, and never occur first'. I certainly do realise that there are a lot of Wikipedia guidelines, many of which I have not read, and so your message is a good reminder that I should point to which guideline I am following as I edit. The second issue is the editing style of Frederick jones (talk · contribs) and my comment on his edits being a 'mess'. I believe that it is fair to say that, although Mr Jones does provide good ellaboration to articles, his edits are full of spelling mistakes, poor grammar and bad punctuation. Less of an issue has been his inclusion of in-line references where an article uses footnotes, which I have moved to footnotes and streamlined. Although, this latter issue is more to do with neatness of style, I do find the abovementioned errors to reflect badly on the quality of the articles concerned. I do not want to discourage Mr Jones from editing as he does add useful material to articles, and so I have felt it better to follow behind tidying up. As far as the articles are concerned, this combination of editing has benefited overall. However, I confess that the repeated tidying of such simple errors has been frustrating at times. I assure you that the good faith remains even if its associated gentleness has sometimes been curbed by frustration. I could believe that Mr Jones has some or other difficulty with typing that would explain the poor quality of the majority of his edits. It is that belief that has led me not to confront him, but to follow his edits with my own. Perhaps, if you think it appropriate, it may be time to discuss the issue with Mr Jones. I think you will find that David Underdown (talk · contribs) has also become somewhat frustrated with his editing. — Gareth Hughes 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I confess to stil being unhappy about the application of the same guidelines for sub-headings as for articles. It makes for a diminution in precision, for which reason I have asked for clarification and explanation in the appropriate article. Really, it sounds nonsense in my ear to write of '1662 prayer book'. The removal of the article in substantive entries is a mere convenience to indexers which scarcely applies within an article and I am surprised that there is any support for it. As for 'mess', I think that, given the deprivation of sight or hearing we do have to be especially gentle. The brutal style we often suffer from,which may be a consequence of US influence or just the confidence of youth is, I believe, to be avoided. That is why I refuse to use nicknames and give people titles. It encourages a reticence which the speed of editing subverts. I wonder whether before slashing and burning my definite articles you might engage is consideration of the arguments. Wp not always delightfully combines peremptory rules with the implicit encouragement - by virute of its system - of irresponsibility. Even consensus can change. Roger Arguile 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the pages of guidelines can seem too much sometimes, and rules are made to be broken. One of the difficult things to get used to with Wikipedia is that what one writes is not one's own: as one is free to edit, so are others free to re-edit. In this light I believe that no 'slashing and burning' has occured. Of course, the detachment we know, of one from the other, behind our computers, makes room for countless of misinterpretations of intent. Such interpretation requires one neither to live across an ocean nor to be in first flush. — Gareth Hughes 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Dialects

Those are orthographies. I'm talking about dialects. Thanks for your answer though.199.126.28.20 13:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An orthography is a system of spelling, and, even though the spellings of some words are different, the differences go a lot deeper than that. Bokmål and Nynorsk are, technically, different varieties of Norwegian. — Gareth Hughes 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't. They do not represent any Norwegian dialect.199.126.28.20 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually used the word 'variety' rather than 'dialect', because the latter does not have a clear meaning in linguistic terminology. If you force the meaning of 'dialect' to mean a traditional, regionally-based variety, then Bokmål and Nynorsk are not such 'dialects'. A standard language is also a fully developed variety, or 'dialect' if you want. However, that's a rather subjective view. It is a fact that Bokmål and Nynorsk are distinct varieties of Norwegian, and that their distinctiveness is not limited to orthography. You may find it useful to read the articles I have linked. — Gareth Hughes 14:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [3]. 75.14.208.224 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's naughtiness afoot. I think it's too complex a throw-away line to say that the Hebrew Bible is 'accepted by Islam'. — Gareth Hughes 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fonts

Gareth, I was asked this question; Shlomo lokh khuna. I was wonderin if you knew why all Syriac texts are displayed in the madnhaya version in my computer? How can i change it? Basima raba - would you know the answer? Chaldean 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends where the fonts are displayed. If it's on the web and the questioner is looking at Unicode, then the browser's preset fonts decide which font is used. I know Firefox tries to find a font that covers the block in question (Syriac block). If it finds a Madnhaya font, then that will be used. You can change the presets if you want Syriac display in a different font. However, it is possible that the website has its own presets for the display. Without a little more information, it is difficult to know what the problem is exactly. — Gareth Hughes 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I have another question. What do you think about changing all the Wiki pages that have the title written in Sureth (example Simele massacre) in the beginning, changed all to (Syriac: ). I say this because we have such a unconsistancy across wiki right now where some are saying Assyrian, Aramaic, Syriac, etc. I think it would make sense if we were consistant in all pages. Chaldean 15:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would take 'Syriac' to apply to 'Classical Syriac': the language of liturgy and older literature. For instance, the word ܦܪܡܬܐ has very clear roots in Classical Syriac, but not usually to mean 'massacre', so it might be reasonable to consider it a Suret word (i.e. Neo-Aramaic) in the context of that article. I think 'Assyrian' by itself should be avoided because of the great difference between Akkadian and Suret. 'Aramaic' is rather vague, so it's better to give an actual variety of Aramaic where possible. However, with ancient place names, it might be difficult to ascertain which variety of Aramaic is invovled. So, I'm not sure if making all references read 'Syriac' would be quite right in all cases. In the case of the Simele Massacre, I could see as good an argument for saying the name is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic as for Syriac. Sometimes it is difficult to say which variety of Aramaic is the source of any name. I'm sorry that that's a bit vague, but you could give me list of articles you wnat me to have a look at. Still, I might have to be a bit vague. — Gareth Hughes 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

Please explain why your repeated reverting of the text of Catholic Church (disambiguation) to your preferred version should not be considered vandalism. You have not offered a single factual objection to the changes you keep reverting. I have been checking the relevant talk page to see if you had something to discuss about the page, but found nothing there. -72.81.136.247 15:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who is changing it. You repeatedly add a link to a redirect page the target of which appears on the same line. You also keep adding more subjective words to the choice of name, whereas the original was more neutral, offering an alternative. It is you who has the burden of proof, not me. — Gareth Hughes 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am changing it. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? You are also changing it to a version you prefer. Yes, I am adding a link to the alternative name, making the reference more neutral; you repeatedly remove the link. I added the words "most" and "usually" - and not subjectively. Those words have very objective meanings, and they are factually correct in the way that I have used them. It is you who has the burden of proof for the version you prefer, and you do not have a factual objection to the various versions I have submitted. -72.81.136.247 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking should not be over used, both links go to the same target, so there is no point linking the second one. Where are your objective criteria to show that your wording is correct? David Underdown 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Looks Good To Me Too - Imette's Page

Just saw what you did with Imette's page and it looks good to me too! FYI, I went up to Boston this past week and you may have noticed my adding to a paragraph. Unfortunately, they didn't build the Garden of Hope yet. I understand that the issue is a backwall that has to be built on the property first.--MurderWatcher1 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for all the personal attacks. It's just that I'm very frustrated right now. As you can see, [4] Assyrians are dying in Iraq and no one cares. It's very frustrating. Didn't mean to take it out on you. Anyway, take care. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:21 08 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I understand something of how you feel. I am really concerned with the plight of Christians in Iraq. I've met young men from Mosul who are trying to get assylum in London — the British Government is reluctant to grant assylum to Iraqis because it sees it as an admission of its failure in Iraq. It is a sad situation indeed. I study Syriac full time, and I'm about to start on a translation of some Narsai. As I spend every day reading the literature and history of the people and churches of the Syriac tradition, I have a strong feeling for them. I do take issue with some aspects of the Assyrian identity, as I'm sure you're aware. Nevertheless, this is not some kind of personal vendetta against the people, but I know that pre–twentieth-century Syriac writers understood their identity in quite a different way to modern writers from the tradition. I have trouble reconciling the two, and that's why I question the origin of some of the principles of the Assyrian identity. Again, this is not personal, I want the accounts to be historically accurate. — Gareth Hughes 00:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. You are obviously a nice guy who wants to take into consideration, all opinions on this matter. That's fine. But look, here's what you have to understand: we have been stateless for 2600 years now. We are originally, the same people, with the same forefathers, etcetera. But, as a result of the fall of an entire empire, and the ruling class of it (Assyrians) becoming stateless, obviously, one way or the other, we were going to go different ways. This is inevitable. Now, what you have here, is Syriacs, and Assyrians (mostly). The Syriacs, are historical revisionists; they claim that they had some kind of vast Aramaean empire and everything. They are extremely religious (well, they don't blow themselves up, but you know what I'm saying), and they are uneducated about their own past. Now, since we Assyrians speak different dialects of Neo-Aramaic, and Jesus, spoke Aramaic, this means a lot to us. One group (the Syriacs i.e.) of Assyrians, seriously believe, they are the Aramaeans because of this loose connection with Jesus. Some of them, even go so far as to claim, that Jesus was an Aramaean himself and not a Jew, in spite of the fact, that we know he was a Jew. The Syriacs, are much like Arabs in that sense. You know, "everyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab!" Ridiculous. Some of them, even claim that the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church in India, are "Arameans" just because they speak Aramaic. Seriously, this Aramaean joke has gone too far. The best part is, they claim that there are no Assyrians left, just because the ancient Assyrian language (Akkadian) is now extinct and replaced with Neo-Aramaic (in reality, the Neo-Aramaic of today is a hybrid of Akkadian and Aramaic). Yesterday, I had a quarrel with a Syriac friend of mine. He got real pissed off when I tried to explain to him about his Assyrian roots. I was trying to explain to him, our history. I asked him, to explain to me, why the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-612 BC) had a change in the language from Akkadian to Aramaic. He had no idea about this. Then he started accusing me of "Assyrian lies", bla bla bla. Now, how the hell are you going to explain to these confused Syriacs that they are in fact, ethnic Assyrians, when they don't even know basic stuff like this and refuse to listen out of some silly pride? Unbelievable. They seriously believe their Neo-Aramaic dialect, is somehow, more "pure Aramaic", than the Neo-Aramaic dialects other Assyrians speak in Iraq and Iran (as opposed to the Neo-Aramaic speaking Syriac Christians in Turkey and Syria). You see what I'm dealing with here? Now, look, if they weren't Assyrians. I wouldn't care one way or the other about calling them Assyrians. But what do you want me to do? Lie to them and tell them they're something they're not? That would go against everything I believe in: being honest. As for the British government, it's no surprise really, that they're letting down Assyrians in Iraq. It's not the first time either. Back in the days, when Great Britain drew the borders of Iraq, they left us stateless, even though, we were supposedly, "allies". And now, the Assyrian people are in this mess as a result of the West (Britain included) ignoring us completely, in order to not look bad. Oh well, it could've been worse, we actually could've been regarded as "Christian Arabs", oh wait... EliasAlucard|Talk 19:29 11 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

The racial purity claim is big problem, many would debate that ethnicity is a social construct, and modern Assyrians do have an entirely different culture to ancient Assyrians — different languages and different religions. You call Syriacs 'historical revisionists', but all the groups have a go at that. If we look at the Syriac literature of late antiquity, we find references to ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, but none to ܐܬܘܪܝܐ (well, two poetic references to the Persian army!). Of course, there never was an Aramaean Empire, but a collection of city states in some kind of loose trading confederation — hardly enough to call an empire. Some of the things you cite as Aramaean claims are clearly overplaying. However, it is just as offensive to call that identity a joke as it would be to call the Assyrian a joke. You might say that it's not the same, that you're right and they're wrong, but it really is your word against theirs — I would have to remain neutral on that argument, as neither claim really has better evidence for it than the other. Because of this, I'm not suprised you were accused of 'Assyrian lies' — call someone's identity a joke, yours gets called a lie — seems like a fair exchange as far as I can see. The adoption of Aramaic as an official language in the Neo-Assyrian Empire is a complex subject, mainly due to mass demographic changes and economic circumstances. I'm not entirely sure what you want to make of it, as the causes of change are not well supported. Talk of the purity of Neo-Aramaic varieties is difficult. I suppose one might try to evaluate the different level of borrowing in each. As far as I can tell, the amount of borrowing in each is about the same. And the British, well we let everyone down, even ourselves. — Gareth Hughes 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

and modern Assyrians do have an entirely different culture to ancient Assyrians — different languages and different religions. - And the Greeks are different how? Chaldean 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a continuum between the culture, religion and language of ancient Greeks and that of modern Greeks. The same is not true of Assyrians: Akkadian and Soureth are indirectly related languages, and, until the archaeological digs that uncovered much of Assyria's history, no one knew much about ancient Assyria that wasn't contained in the Bible and Greek histories. — Gareth Hughes 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Garzo, you are a rational guy, I can tell. But, take this in consideration: as far as I can tell, from looking at it objectively, this is sectarian thinking; it's quite clear to me, we have an indigenous Assyrian group of people, that somehow want to feel closer to Jesus, by claiming some kind of Aramaean ethnicity (a fake one, may I add), just because Jesus spoke a dialect of Aramaic. Now, obviously, language family is an important factor of deciding someone's ethnicity. But, you can't go from that alone because sometimes, it's misleading. For instance, the African-Americans in the United States, are obviously not Anglo-Saxon Britons just because they speak English, right? Of course they're not. Now, what we can glean from history, is a very important factor in deciding the ethnicity of modern Assyrians. If we look at the Syriac literature of late antiquity, we find references to ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, but none to ܐܬܘܪܝܐ (well, two poetic references to the Persian army!). — The very fact that Syriac writers have been presenting themselves as Syrians, couldn't make it more clear to me, that the Syriacs are Assyrians. I mean, come on, for the love of God, it's just an A. I don't understand what the fuss is about. Obviously, they are Assyrians. You can't change someone's ethnicity by removing the first vowel from the group's defined ethnic name. And you don't base someone's ethnicity entirely on the mother tongue. As for my Syriac friend, I didn't call his ethnicity a joke. I was trying to explain it to him, he got pissed off, accused me of lying, and he's not talking to me now. I think such behaviour is anti-intellectual and immature. How are you going to deal with people like that? By the way, this is what I meant by Aramaean joke [5] I wish I were making this up. What's that, if not historical revisionism? Aramaic was a lingua franca at the time. Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic, but that doesn't mean he was of Aramaean ancestry. Now look, I'm not going to deny that modern Assyrians have Aramaean ancestors. We most likely, do have Aramaean ancestors. But, we are ethnic Assyrians, and we speak Neo-Aramaic because of the assimilation of Aramaean tribes into the Assyrian empire; that was the policy of the Assyrian empire, as explained by American scholar Richard N. Frye here. Syriac-orthodox is simply a church denomination and it has become some kind of pseudo-ethnicity. Just like some Assyrians call themselves Chaldeans and nowadays seriously believe they are some kind of Babylonians (yes, it has gone that far), there are now some Assyrians who call themselves Syriacs and think they're more Aramaean than the rest of us. This sure is some kind of ethnic insanity. and modern Assyrians do have an entirely different culture to ancient Assyrians — different languages and different religions. — Are you surprised? I mean, is this an argument, is this a valid point? Look, we have been stateless for 2600 years and suffered occupation of several vast empires, I'm surprised there are still remnants of the Assyrian-Aramaic people. Culture, language and religion, are not static, they are dynamic; they evolve, change, or are replaced. And they do indeed, evolve faster than ethnic groups of people (I seriously doubt proto-Germans looked a lot different than for instance, modern Swedes). French people, for instance, are no longer Germanic speaking today. And they don't believe in the polytheistic Ásatrú religion of the Vikings. Does that mean they're not descendants of the Germanic Franks tribes? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. It's the exact same thing that has happened here; just like Assyrians replaced Ashurism with Christianity, Franks replaced Germanic paganism with Christianity, and both groups changed their language from Akkadian to Aramaic and from German to French (a Romance language), and this happened as a result of imperialism and miscegenation. History is repeating itself. But, of course, modern Assyrians are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, although we aren't 'pure Assyrians', we are Assyrians. By the way, something you should have in mind, is that it's not strange at all, that the Syriacs rather want to be Aramaeans than Assyrians. The Assyrians, were terribly cruel in their imperialistic ways. They are depicted like some kind of Hitler-like Nazis in the Old Testament, simply because of the Ten Lost Tribes. The Aramaeans on the other hand, had a lot better relationship with the Jews. What do you think will happen, when Aramaic speaking Assyrians adopt a non-Assyrian religion, a Jewish religion, and in this religion, there are scriptures depicting Assyrians as bad guys? Of course, some Assyrians will do their damnedest to reject their own past and 'whitewash' and distance themselves from their own forefathers, and the most convenient identity at hand, is the Aramaean one. Me, I don't do that. I'm proud of being an Assyrian, and I'm proud of being a Christian. Also, one last point: we Assyrians have Jesus on our side :) The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. [6] — What do you think Jesus meant by that? Obviously, he was talking about Assyrians converting to Christianity, not Aramaeans. Men of Nineveh; it can only mean Assyrians. And he probably understood them well since they were Aramaic speaking Assyrians. Anyway, my point is, you shouldn't take the Syriacs too seriously when they claim that they are Aramaeans, and just listen to those of us that claim we are Assyrians, because at least, in our case, we Assyrians are trying to look at it historically from an anthropological point of view, without religious bias. Most Syriacs don't even know what anthropology is; they just swallow everything the Syriac Orthodox priests tell them about being Aramaeans. Too much indoctrination. Beware of confusing Church identities with actual ethnicities. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:22 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

There is a continuum between the culture, religion and language of ancient Greeks and that of modern Greeks. The same is not true of Assyrians: Akkadian and Soureth are indirectly related languages, and, until the archaeological digs that uncovered much of Assyria's history, no one knew much about ancient Assyria that wasn't contained in the Bible and Greek histories - How can you say this? How is ancient Greek religion of Zeus related to Greek Orthodox of today? Their is no continum culture between today's Assyrians? Then why do we name our children Sargon and Ashur? Why do we dress in traditional clothes? How can you say Sureth isn't part of the Assyrian identity? When the Assyrian empire was at its peak, they did not speak Akkadian, but instead Aramaic. So how can you say Aramaic/Sureth isn't a big part of the Assyrian identity? Their is no difference between how Greeks used to call themselves Spartans, Athenians, etc and how Assyrian call/called themselves Syrian/Suraya/etc. I for one I'm not claiming direct/total descendity but you are speaking like as if their is no chance what so ever ie just shutting the door? The evidence is their, but everyone translates it differently for themselves I guess. Chaldean 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I deserve a reply. Please Gareth continue this conversation. Chaldean 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did Assyrians call their children Sargon and wear Assyrian clothes and call themselves Assyrian in the Middle Ages or Late Antiquity? I don't know, do you? — Gareth Hughes 00:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian - NOT all, but Syrian - certinally ALL. If this wasn't the case then we would be Arab, Kurdish, or Turkish Christian. Surely we had our own culture, clothes, community, etc, if not then we would easily have been integrated into the rest of the community. Chaldean 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I tried to write in syriac here; Radya Caldaya - can you please tell me why the letters are not connecting? Chaldean 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because a people has been deprived of its ancient culture, religion, and language, doesn't mean it's not the same people. Surely, you don't expect Britons to be culturally identical in 3000 years from now? — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:25 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Your revert of amun

Your revert of the article only reintroduces a spelling error. Just because an edit is made by an unregistered user it does not necessarily have to be vandalism ;) Sakkura 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is true. — Gareth Hughes 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

your revert of a map of Aram from an article locating it

I'm sure you can explain why a common source map used in other articles on Wikipedia and bible verses referring to the cites of Aram can't be used in identifying its location which the form you reverted to specifies as unknown and speculates is several hundred miles away from where it is actually located.Rktect 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

. Aram This illustrates the territory of Asher, Dan, Nephtali and Zebulon on the headwaters of the Jordan river connecting to the southern end of the territory of the Nahrin at Kadesh on the Orontes. The people the Egyptians called the Nah-araim or Nahrin are also known as the Mittani and this locates their cities relative to Aram and its cities .Rktect 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have written to you on your talk page about your repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly-sourced sweeping statements into articles. Please stop. — Gareth Hughes 15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I responded. Look at the map. Look at the bible passages. Look at the discussion page. Whats your issue? it certainly can't be that it is poorly sourced.Rktect 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

respectfully, I just left a map on your page that identifies where Aram is. The articles you restored say their authors don't know where it is but speculate its in Mesopotamia on the basis of cites from Josephus who was himself speculating.

If you consider cites of Bible verses referring to its cities as located south of Damascus and otherwise defining its territory along with maps original research thats your problem, not mine. You should find there is adequate material on the talk pages to explain why its not.

Reverting the page removes the references and leaves the speculation.

If you wish to raise issues with individual articles, please do so on that article's talk page, and please do so in a manner that leads to discussion with other editors rather than by making sweeping statements and arbitrary revertsRktect 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a clear history of doing this that has brought similar response from other editors. You have been blocked for repeatedly adding your own half-baked ideas to Wikipedia. If your statements and sources were good enough, they would stand up to scrutiny, but they do not. Discuss individual issues in the article talk pages. If any one of your claims stands up, it will be included. — Gareth Hughes 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All the issues are discussed on the talk page. Since they are solidly sourced sourced try responding to them there. Look at the map. Look at where the map and the references locate Aram. I provided a corraborating source Book and Page in the Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia. Can you provide a better map which shows Aram including Haran? Dont you think you should leave a reference up until you can find a better one?Rktect 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Try and be specific about what cities are a part of Aram between Damascus and Haran, explain why they aren't a part of Damascus or Hamath or Charchemesh rathr than Aram. Tell me who they pay tribute to. The article as you left it doen't know what its talking about. It speculates wildly.Rktect 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you prefer that to an article that locates Aram by references to it?Rktect 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

http://lang.arabe.free.fr

Hello, I am François from France-Toulouse. I am a passionate of foreign languages. I have built the site during many months, it is non commercial, purely FREE for all. http://lang.arabe.free.fr I have made four versions in order to be understand by the maximum of people in the world : Arabic, français, espanol, russian and English. My site is of very good quality and now that I am not in Wikipedia I have less and less visits. I find your decision not fair because my only goal is to share my passion and help to learn Arabic. There is no advertisement in my site, no religion subject, only about Arabic. If I put it in all Wikipedia languages it is because I think that an hungarian a Russian, a spanish... have the same right than Chinese, Korean or other to learn Arabic.

Many language pages where I put it, there was nothing to learn Arabic, no external link at all, and you ask us to participate and make content, that's what I have done. I would be very pleased if you can reintegrate my website because it is a good one. I am ranked 4 on Google, and I am not in Wikipedia. I know that you have the power in one click to annihilate all my hours of work day and night. I have been working hard, and my goal is not to spam but make my knowledge available for the most people. I have exactly the same idea than Wikipedia to make my work available in the most languages as possible. I am not able to make my site in Hungarian (magyar) or in Chinese or in Dutch, that is the reason why I made links towards English version. I would appreciate a lot if you can restaure my links, for me and the visitors. Thanks, because I love wikipedia and I often read articles, and I want to participate.

Now I just ask you to add me in the most common languages such as English and French. If I made an error of excess it was not with a bad goal, only by passion for Arabic.

François

François, you have already been informed that your addition of your website across multiple wikis is considered spamming. Your website has been put up for consideration to be added to the spam blacklist. It's no good talking to me; you should comment on the blacklisting talk page. The reasons you outline above do not give you licence to spam Wikipedia. You have been told this numerous times, but continue doing it. — Gareth Hughes 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Garzo, thanks for your answer. You are the master here. But I just want to say it is not a spam link as you say, it's good work. But I love Wikipedia even if you don't like my site at all.

And I apologize for all the trouble I cause you, sorry it was for a good reason, but you didn't understand. I wanted to make civilization talk together... with a "French touch".

I will do what you tell me to : that is to comment on the blacklisting talk page.

Bye and best regards from France. (I hope you are not too angry about me, I did it with GOOD FAITH).

I and other users here have shown you the policies, and mass inclusion of an external link across different Wikipedias is clearly spamming. Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, but it is sad when people take advantage of that for their own ends, like promotion of their own website. External links are best chosen by editors involved in articles who wish to provide links to further reading, references and resources. You are clearly not involved in the project of improving articles, but simply advertising your website. I have no opinion on your site, but your edit history is clearly that of a spammer. — Gareth Hughes 13:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu is awesome...

I prefer Xubuntu. I've used all three but I don't like Kubuntu. It's too Windows-like. I'm waiting for Fluxbuntu to come out so I can install it on my old PIII 533MHz IBM 300 PL. It runs fine on Xubuntu with 384MB of RAM and a 20GB hard drive with a 4x HP CD burner but I wonder how much better performance I'll get on it with Fluxbox. I have my PIII 1GHz with 1GB Ram and 40GB storage running on Kubuntu and Windows XP Home. Linux is the future though FreeBSD is much better albeit less supported.Sharru Kinnu III 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I used to use KDE on SuSE, but switched to Gnome on Ubuntu about a year ago. I did think about using Kubuntu because I was used to KDE, but I agree with you that it feels too Windows-like. I have toyed with Xubuntu, but it feels not quite slick enough for me. If I want to do nuts-and-bolts Linux, I can always go to a command prompt in a non-graphical terminal. I'm quite impressed with Ubuntu's management of software packages, much easier than SuSE's, and I keep on finding more people who have made the switch to Ubuntu. — Gareth Hughes 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FluxBuntu has been delayed again until September in conjunction with the anticipated update of Ubunut. I'm hoping it gives me a slight performance boost over Xubuntu on my old P3 533. It's not too bad on Xubuntu but from what they claim Fluxbox should consume even fewer resources than XFCE does on Xubuntu. It's not an official distro like Xubuntu however. I would one day like to release my own version of Linux in conjunction with a computer system I develop. Peep this: A P3 Tualatin retails very cheap on eBay and they max out at 1.4 GHz w/o overclocking and about 2.0GHz when overclocked. They can be used in a dual processor system yielding 1MB total Cache. The downside is the 133MHz front side bus but with 4GB of RAM would still serve as a decent server. I know of a 500GB hard drive for 100 bucks and a nice video and sound card to go along with that. With a DVD-RW+/- and everything mentioned it won't even cost 300 dollars. Impressive eh? That would make a nice home server.Sharru Kinnu III 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac/Aramaean naming crisis revisited...

This debate continues... Every entry should be a seperate article. I don't understand why this is still an issue. Link all the articles together and state the opposing view points and for each article explain what the actual title is and where it derives from in relation to the current usages of the ethnic designations.Sharru Kinnu III 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is tough. I've been through this so many times, and have realised that there's no easy solution. There are plenty of people who want to talk up one of these identities and reduce the others. I have a fairly good idea how these names were used in late antiquity and throughout the middle ages, but this is at odds with how many people today understand them. The articles cannot be completely separate because they are naturally linked. I know of Chaldaeans who call themselves Assyrian, and Syriacs who call themselves Aramaean. It would be easy just to use church membership as a guide, but many see this, understandably, as superficial. They, instead, point to ethnic background as the correct identity to use, but all questions of ethnicity (anywhere in the world) are very complex. Sometimes I have suggested a more united approach, trying to bring together all the different identities, acknowledging that they share more than divides them. This has come into difficulty with those who want to promote one identity above the others. One idea was to do as you suggest, and have the separate articles, but also have a united article that discusses common themes. However, there is a major problem about bias here — article should strive to be as neutral as posible. However, these articles, at the moment, tend to express one view over the others. This is tough stuff, and takes time to get consensus. — Gareth Hughes 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What does the historical data present? I'm interested in knowing how the Syriac authors presented themselves to the world. As much as I know we've refered to ourselves as "Syrians" in Syriac/Aramaic for at least as far back as we were Christian but what did the classical authors say or did they say anything? I mean the Chaldean name is rather erroneous though not completely far fetched and the Assyrian name is more nationalistic than ethnic and Aramaean sure gets the language in the picture but I mean honestly Syrian would make the most sense if the world wasn't so politically chaotic. We are Syrian though geographically Assyrian makes sense and the Chaldeans were Aramaic-speaking and very well could have fled Persian pograms to the north and possibly have mixed in with the population but the very fact that there was a schism within the Church of the East and from what I hear within the church even during the 16th century there were ongoing disputes on weather we were (As)syrian or Chaldean though the Mandeans if anyone are the most likely descendants of Babylonian/Chaldeans and Marsh Arabs probably closest to the ancient Sumerians. Again I just would like to know what historical Syriac documents state if there are any instances of people questioning their identity. What about Arabic documents? What did the Classical Arab authors refer to us as?Sharru Kinnu III 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Syrian would make the most sense if the world wasn't so politically chaotic - Where on earth do you think this word came about in history? I agree with Gareth, acknowledging that they share more than divides them. - I dont think any Aramaic speaker will deny being called a Suraya, but to just stop at that and not talk about the word's origins and the real meaning, is basically unfair (to the Assyrian point of view.) Chaldean 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean, I'm not dipsuting that Syrian is derived from Assyrian but let us say that if things were different politically today and that the United Arab Republic had merged with Iraq and had stayed united to this day we would no doubt be calling ourselves the indegenous Syrians if that was the name of the country. In fact if Syria wasn't called Syria we would all agree to the name Syrian. It's the very fact that Syria exists as a national entity that we avoid confusing people by not calling ourselves Syrian just as with the whole Syriac designation for some of our people. I don't think anyone would be disputing weather we are Syrian as they do with Chaldean, Assyrian, or Aramaean.Sharru Kinnu III 12:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly I agree with you. If their was no Arab Syria today, and we were all calling ourselves Syrian, then don't you think we would all (Churches) be agreeing to acknowledge our Assyrian heritage? Chaldean 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we're not Assyrian. I'm just saying that this wouldn't be as hot a topic if that was the case. Because of the very fact that we call ourselves Syrians in Syriac we have all this confusion. Chaldean on the other hand even if the theory that after the Persians conquered Babylon they fled to the north was true they would have assimilated in with the (As)syrians very quickly due to the similarities in culture (like Candadians in America) and I don't know of anyone that says "Kaldaya" in Syriac when referring to themselves. Koulan amrakh Sour(y)ayeh-wakh. Maybe nowadays people may say Kaldaya in Syriac but it is very rare from my observation being a Chaldean Catholic. I don't disagree with people calling themselves what they want because over time our people have somewhat evolved into distinct groups but wheather or not that renders them into new ethnic groups is questionable. It is no doubt that Maronites, even Melkites (including Palestinian Christians) were originally Aramaic-speaking at one point and are ultimately "our people" in the sense that they shared much of our culture and heritage even though there always has been division as well wheather it be denominational, dialectal, or geographical but as time has weathered away at our humanity our shape has changed as has our landscape. We are now fragmented and our roads may have started at the same point but we each took different paths in the fork of history. Even in ancient times you couldn't really group people together as "one group" so to do it now is rather foolish. People were loyal to their city-states, royalty, religion, etc. That defined our anscestors when we were many in number even though never truly untied. Now that we are depleted and share much with each of these remnants of the ancient Aramaic-speaking (Christian for the latter part of our history) world we tend to want to unite into one group yet again yet can't agree on what to call ourselves or how to conduct ourselves as one people because we were never truly united as people only through multi-ethnic states governed by the same rulers whom for the most part were ruthless and in constant threat of being overthrown not too much like the current situation in Iraq after Saddam. Ultimately you want to unite all of humanity together but you can't do it by telling people that they're wrong. You have to show them that you're right.Sharru Kinnu III 16:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The historical data generally supports the name ܣܘܪܝܝܐ (always two ܝs: the spelling with one ܝ is much later), which can be understood as both 'Syrian' and 'Syriac'. The name is derived from the Greek Συρια. It seems that this Greek name is an aphetic form of Ασσυρια. The Greek usage of the term Συρια is complex, and complicated by their parallel use of Ασσυρια. It seems that Aramaic-speaking Christians (i.e. those not of the more westerly, Greek-speeking urban centres) adopted the Greek name when the term ܐܪܡܝܐ, the native Semitic word used for what the Greeks called Συρια, came to refer to Aramaic-speaking pagans. Thus, it is fair to say that ܣܘܪܝܝܐ means 'Aramaic-speaking Christian'. However, the Greeks continued to use the term Συριοι for anyone living between Anatolia and Persia. Mediaeval texts show the invention of the borrowing of a differently vowelled ܐܪܡܝܐ from Biblical Hebrew ארמי ('Ārāmāyā' meaning 'Aramaean' in a good-to-neutral sense, with original 'Arāmāyā' in anegative sense). The word ܟܠܕܝܐ is not common, but, where it ocurrs, stands for a pagan astrologer. It is even taken into aph`el form ܐܟܠܕ ('akled') meaning 'to consult the stars'. The term does ocurr in the Peshitta Old Testament, and later literature does use the term to refer to people from the region of Baghdad. The name ܐܬܘܪܝܐ is not at all common in late-antique literature. There are two references to Persian armies advancing on Roman territory as ܐܬܘܪܝܐ (in biblical allusion). In mediaeval literature, the term is a rather neutral one for anyone coming from the province of Mosul. Mediaeval Arabic documents tend to prefer the word سوريني — the terms كلدي and اشوري are much later, and attached to legal church identities in Arabic, Persian and Ottoman Turkish. Mostly, all of these words are used to describe someone by their language, geographical origin or church membership. The idea of them referring to ethnicity is really quite modern (last few centuries). This is what I find when I take the long view. It suggests a situation that is a lot more involved and intertwined than a lot of the websites out there are claiming. — Gareth Hughes 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the fact that this is much more complicated than the oversimplified websites claim. Syria may have been derived from Assyria and Aramaean may have meant Aramaic-speaking pagan at one point and Chaldean no doubt related to Astrology and our Ancient Religion but nevertheless how does one hold supremacy over the other? Until our leaders reach a comprimise and unite and everyone accepts it this debate will continue. It doesn't look likely that they'll do that anytime soon. As far as I see it our people may have referred to themselves as Aramaean meaning they spoke Aramaic and they may have called themselves Assyrian due to their geographical location or Syrian as the usage replaced the more histrical Assyrian and possibly even Chaldean if they were priests in the old religion but I don't see how any of these are actually wrong. They are all correct in different usages but as far as ethnic designations I would have to refrain from stating that any of the terms refer to specific ethnic groups. We are all of these designations but for the sake of unity in this day and age where we are low in numbers we ultimately have to come up with a common name which I think if not for the nation state of modern day Syria we would call ourselves Syrians.Sharru Kinnu III 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of Egypt restored

11-July-2007: The ID "User:Lanternix" (notified) was logged as overwriting an unsourced map image onto a map of Egypt developed by the American CIA, on 19-May-2007 at 1:09 a.m, which has been restored (after 52 days). Map image: Image:Egypt-region-map-cities.gif (view older versions to compare).

Received with WikiProject: Ancient Egypt. -Wikid77 08:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apostasy articles

Hello Gareth, do you think it might be worth it to sprotect the talk pages of the Apostasy articles where the spammer is relentlessly placing his comments on? Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting close to that. The abuser keeps using different IPs, and I can only block them for a few days really. A lot of the posts are on the talk pages, and I'm not so sure about protecting them. I think I've put temporary blocks on about six or seven IPs now. If we see that the abuse slows from this, all well and good, but if it continues, then protection is the only option left. — Gareth Hughes 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83 seems to be back as User:Irrer

Hi,

Thought you might like to know that Mariam83 seems to have reregistered as User:Irrer, with some major reverts to other articles, perhaps to establish credibility. Bouha 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just come across Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). This user has made a few good edits, but has also made reverts to very old versions of articles (e.g. Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). It looks likely that the user is Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'm looking into it. — Gareth Hughes 11:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bouha

Since you have warned me about Vandalism, I take it you are an administrator of some sort. This is rather strange, but I noticed on the Tunisia Talkpage that Bouha posted a reply to my explanation as Drmaik, and then changed her/his signature to Bouha. Would you kindly check on this? I see no reason for her/his aggressive reverts, as I genuinely believe the older version is a better version. Thank you. Irrer 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to page under construction - Jennifer Moore.

Hello, Gareth. I am still learning Wikipedia. I noticed that this user had edited a page I had put 'Under Construction', the 'Jennifer Moore' page. Is he an administrator?

---

cur) (last) 11:13, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,996 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:11, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,961 bytes) (→The Teenage Prostitute Accessory) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:11, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,965 bytes) (→The accused murderer) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:11, July 13, 2007 AdamJaz (Talk | contribs) (6,969 bytes) (→The Accused Murderer - Please review the wikipedia manual of style, section 4.2) (undo)

---

Please let me know, thank you!--MurderWatcher1 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! AdamJaz (talk · contribs) is a new editor, not an admin. This user's edits to Jennifer Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are simply cleaning up grammar and style. The 'under constraction' banner is really just a note to others that the article isn't supposed to look finished yet, so AdamJaz was just helping out a bit. You might want to give the Wikipedia:Manual of Style a good read through, as it explains general style issues. — Gareth Hughes 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth!--MurderWatcher1 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hosanna

Hi Gareth, if you're not quoting from the Bauer lexicon under under Hosanna#Etymology, please would you change it to leave the original quotation intact? Perhaps your inserted line should come first, including the transliteration from Hebrew, followed by the detailed quotations from the various lexicons. - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes I didn't realise that I was inserting the transliteration into a quotation. Of course, the lexicon presumes a standard of knowledge about the language that Wikipedia readers may not have. Thus, it might be more appropriate to add a general sentence first. I'll do just that. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer

Perhaps you've been doing this work awhile. I was surprized that you removed the Lord's Prayer with it's Spiritual Interpretation, and put me on the blacklist without even following the Matt. Code. hmmm. Simplywater 18:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to have understood. There was an external link in that article that is blacklisted as a spam link. I removed it. I do have a blacklist, nor put people one one. I removed the Mary Baker Eddy text from the article, suggesting that it would better suit another article. You seem to have found a good place for it, and I've linked to it. I could, though, do without the 'Matt. Code. hmmm' comment. — Gareth Hughes 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic - Akkadian

Since we share an interest in ANE languages I would be wondering if you could tell me a little bit about any similarities or differences you are aware of between Akkadian and Aramaic. Rktect 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in replacing loanwords in Aramaic from Arabic/Turkish/Persian or even English/French with Akkadian words and Aramaicizing them. In my dialect there are many loan words from Kurdish/Turkish and to a lesser extent English and French. eg. Souleh for shoes, Bagno for Bathtub, Douche for Showerhead, Atnabil for Automobil, Lira or Pareh for money, Odeh for room, etc.Sharru Kinnu III 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Loanwords are a vital part of any living language. There have been attempts in many languages to 'purify' the language of loanwords: almost all of these have ended in failure, and many were simply ridiculous. Only dead languages stop borrowing. I would treasure the loanwords rather than purge them. Do you really want to get rid of Persian words that have been used in Aramaic for 3000 years as well? Might you accidentally throw out Aramaic words and miss well-hidden borrowings? If you did manage to purge loanwords and replace them with what Akkadian words you could find, the language would be as artificial as Klingon! What is the Akkadian for automobile (Arrabanu???) anyway? — Gareth Hughes 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right it does make for an interesting language but Modern Hebrew is a reconstructed language though it contains a plethora of loanwords mainly form Indo-European languages such as Yidish which I call Jewish German and even Arabic and Aramaic. I understand what you're saying but in my dialect it contains an unusually high amount of loanwords because our village was very close with the British and French adminstrators during their post colonialist endevours. We have a dish called Chilifry which is tomatoes fried with onions and bits of steak served the traditional Iraqi way on top of rice. That's a remnant of their adminstratorship over Iraq as are many words I can't think of at this time. Dollara, Milliona, Billiona, Tyeera for Tire, Matora for Motor, Makina for Machine, Merci in place of Baseema, Bonjour maybe used as well as Bonsoir, Hallaw for Hello, Telafon, etc. I'd say at least 50% of our vocabulary is Arabic. I'm not even going to begin to list words.Sharru Kinnu III 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Hebrew is quite exceptional. It only worked perhaps because of strong connexion that Jews have with Hebrew. However, Modern Hebrew is marked by a large number of loanwords. It is, perhaps, Hebrew's openness to loanwords that has allowed it to thrive. Trying to enforce artificial Hebraisms on speakers of Modern Hebrew would likely end in failure. The best way for a language to grow through its loanwords is to give it access to media, publishing and everyday use. This allows a language to be itself even though it is full of borrowings. Without this outlet, a language can cease to be seen for its borrowings. If you get some really clever Akkadian words, that sound good, they might catch on if they're given enough exposure. However, I would suggest that purging a language of borrowings is a negative step likely to lead to the decimation rather than the flourishing of a language. — Gareth Hughes 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian cuisine

I need some assistance here. I can't move that silly template out of the way. It's nice there's an Assyrian template but it's blocking the cuisine template. I can't find the script for it. HELP!!! Sharru Kinnu III 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it. I hope that's what you were looking for. — Gareth Hughes 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude! What do you think of the article? I expanded on it as much as I could for now. It is more than double the length of the original article and is longer than many of the linked articles. I think the assesment on it should be changed. It is rated low-grade but that's another story.Sharru Kinnu III 12:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello i have seen you knowlegde about the Sumerian language, i wonder if youi can help edit "Sumerian people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nochi (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 July 2007.

Arendt/Heidegger Reverts

I was puzzled at your revert of Arendt edit and then read the Cabinet article. I then noticed that you reverted references to the same article from the Heidegger piece. While it may not be the best place for the reference in the Arendt piece, it would be a pity to lose the link to an interesting article which quotes from her diary. Perhaps it could be left in something like a footnote. It would be even more of a shame that the reference is totally removed from the Heidegger entry as it really does add an interesting dimension to his life. Joel Mc 09:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about Hannah Arendt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Martin Heidegger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I reverted a number of edits made by the new user WinstonWinston (talk · contribs). Although many edits were of reasonable quality, all of them were links to Cabinet. The user's edits thus constitute an attempt to spam, to raise the profile of this magazine. Individual edits that seem worthwhile may be re-added. However, I have warned the user to stop adding links to the same website to multiple articles. — Gareth Hughes 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have looked beyond those two pieces and see what you mean. I will find a way of citing an interesting and well-written article at a later date.--Joel Mc 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content of Iranian history

Afew days ago I deleted some text and then you put it back in and said it was deleted for no good reason, but you didn't notice that the information was too detailed for the section which was supposed to be a short snappy description of the time. I will make that edit and others similar to it in the coming days and weeks. If you are unhappy with my edits please disuss it with me on my talk page before putting it back in.Manu kian maheri93 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It would help greatly if you used edit summaries for all of your edits. At the moment, none of your edits are given summaries, except for the automatic summaries. If you remove contents from an article without explanation, the rest of us are left to guess what your motives might be. I, and many others, would automatically revert any unexplained deletion of good material from an article. You are likely to find many of your edits reverted if you fail to include a basic summary of what you are doing. With regard to simplifying articles, you should ensure that all removed material is included elsewhere. Thus, if a section of a more general article is streamlined, material should be moved to a more focused article. If no such article exists, you might consider creating one. A template like {{main}} can be used to link from a section in a more general article to the more specific article. — Gareth Hughes 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Abbasid article protection

About this edit, the banned user who was disrupting that page with various sock-puppets, has returned with a new sock-puppet/throw-away account. Can you please restore the protection? --Mardavich 18:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One edit was made and then reverted. I changed the article's protection from infinite to a period of a week. Limited protection is used to encourage vandals or those engaged in edit wars to give up. Infinite protection is only applied in certain circumstances. If the article becomes a problem, I'll protect for another week. — Gareth Hughes 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrianism revisited

As you have noted, there is again someone doing his utmost best to Assyrianise everything related with Syriac Christianity. One example is the page Syriac Assyrians. I put it up for deletion, as its mere title is POV, but I'm afraid something went wrong. Unfortunately, I'm currently unable to monitor the discussion. Would you please keep an eye out? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that it is completely biased and unnecessary. — Gareth Hughes 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I too am concern over growing bias going on with Assyrian related topics lately. As a moderator Gareth, I think you need to start taking actions (in the most neutralist way) and stop being on the sideline. Please get back involved again. Chaldean

With the way this is going [[7]] what are you going to do now Gareth? I don't think people outside of this topic understand this situation much. I don't think it made sense to have this on a public vote since the public doesn't really have much knowledge about the subject. Suggest these articles to be merged with other ones. Chaldean 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD nominations have not been very fruitful, the cases were closed due to a lack of consensus. The issue has gotten worse, since Dbachmann now believes that "Assyrians", being the most used term for referring to the Syriacs, should be the common denominator. On his talk page, I have tried to convince him that statistics is no way to solve this matter. Understandably (considering you work among the people involved), you have more or less been standing on the sideline, but considering your expertise in this area, I urge you to throw in your weight to change the momentum in order to present a balanced picture of the Syriac Christians. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got a selection of good scholarly sources here that may help to shed some light on the issue. I'll try to edit something together and put bits of it in different articles. Mostly, it's about the fact that 'Assyrian' isn't commonly used anywhere before the 19th century. Dab is only judging the issue based on what information he has got. I imagine that his point of view will change when presented with hard, detailed facts. — Gareth Hughes 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, it's about the fact that 'Assyrian' isn't commonly used anywhere before the 19th century Why are you making up stuff? We are not claiming that, but we are claiming Suraya is another way of saying Assuraya. Chaldean 03:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not 'making up stuff'. I thought you knew me better than that. The link between the words isn't very clear. Some have said that the Greek word 'Syria' comes from the word 'Assyria', but many are not so sure. Mainly because Greek uses both words, and uses 'Syria' for a wider region, mostly west of the Euphrates. Certainly, the spelling 'Suraya' is a fairly late respelling of 'Suryāyā'. The two 'y's are there for a reason. — Gareth Hughes 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not making up stuff. I thought you knew me better than that. - you know very well you have the utmost respect from me, but it gets really annoying when every now and then you label us as the bad guys.

ertainly, the spelling Suraya is a fairly late respelling of 'Suryāyā'. - the only reason I say Suraya is because that is how we say it in our language. I really never heard of Suryaya. Do you have Ishtar TV? Its a great way of getting a better understanding of the Iraqi Sureth community. Chaldean 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone is 'bad'. I'm just saying what reliable sources say. It happens to be different from what the Assyrian media say. So, it needs to be said. I understand that Assyrians are going to be upset by it, but I'm not doing this to upset anyone. It's all about the honest facts. The fact that you haven't even heard of the word 'Suryāyā' is part of the problem. It's all over the historical literature and is still used today. The spelling with only one 'y' seems to be a fairly modern spelling. If I put together well-referenced, scholarly information and add it to Wikipedia articles, why should you worry? I suppose you worry because what academics generally say is not on Ishtar TV or AINA. The fact is that there is widespread academic scepticism about what these agencies say. — Gareth Hughes 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Me and other Assyrians work so hard and put so much time in our research, but our work gets smeared as lies and biased by you and Benne. I ask you this: where have we ever used AINA as a source? Where have we used biased sources? Show me Gareth, and I personally will remove them. I have established myself as a person that really cares about the information on wiki be very much NPOV. Every now and then a user will come and change the population of the Assyrian people, citing AINA. I immediately revert and demand only census and reliable sources be used. If I put together well-referenced, scholarly information and add it to Wikipedia articles, why should you worry? - No Gareth I don't have a problem with that, but our nationality is not negotiable. You can't change the title of the Assyrian people. That is what the world knowns us as and that is what we call ourselves. As for creating an ultimate unifying page - I for the past 2 years I have suggested you and Benne numerous different solutions, but never got any response back. As for the term Suryaya - I don't understand where your going with this. All these issues including the extra y can all be confronted once and for all in a unifying page, probably Syriac Christianity. Chaldean 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why we're doing this again. I think the Assyrian people article is quite good at the moment. I do think that your work on it has been commendable. And, like you, I'm annoyed when someone comes along trying to push it one way or the other. We both realise that Assyrian identity is a political issue. We both probably wish it were not, but that is the way it is. I stand with the great Assyrian writers of the last couple of centuries who have helped a scattered people find a united identity, and I wish that there were more unity than there is today. I support all this. There is, however, scepticism about the trappings of this identity. Particularly, the evidence that, before the 19th century, the ancestors of modern Assyrians did not hold to this identity. The evidence points quite strongly to European missionaries introducing ethonyms, the earliest introduction was 'Chaldean', that was then taken up by the Catholic Church. It's all from good reliable sources. I think the names of Syriac Christians article might be the place to introduce this material. I think that Syriac Christians article might make a good unified article, but it needs some serious work (that's why I haven't started anything there myself). — Gareth Hughes 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more then aware the naming issue is more of a political thing then any other thing. Particularly, the evidence that, before the 19th century, the ancestors of modern Assyrians did not hold to this identity. - you say it as if the word Assyrian diapered for 2000 years and just came back. I realized that Syriac speakers didn't always call themselves Assyrian, but answer this question: While we called ourselves Suraya durin AD, what did our neighbors to the North and to the East called us? Why did the Armenians continued to call us Assyrian? Why did the Georgians continued to call us Assyrian? Why did the Persians continued to call us Athuraye? You make it sound as if Syriac = Assyrian is a far-fitched theory. But common sense and putting everything together tells us otherwise. Chaldean 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hello, just a courtesy note, that some of your interactions with Makalp, is being presented as evidence against him, in an Arbitration case [8]. VartanM 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab's persistant vandalism of the Assyrian people article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&oldid=148929248 <--------- Sharru Kinnu III 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. — Gareth Hughes 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I don't care anymore. I'm moving on to other articles. I like the current article but it does need to be toned down just a little bit. I looked at it from a non-Assyrian perspective as if I were to be totally ignorant on the subject and at times it did seem to be self-glorifying. Sharru Kinnu III 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for not falling into the traps of Assyrians

Hello Garzo

My name is S. Marco and I am a Chaldean who is annoyed with the Assyrians claiming and distingushing other cultures in order to increase their numbers, and if you have a look at the Chaldean Assyrian site you will be informed about my believes. The field of Ancient Sumeria and the other civilisations in the middle east is my expertise, however, i dont have any university degree in any type of History. Once again thank you, and i hope that you and I could correct a coule of the aricles of the Chaldeans.

Professor Marco

Asm ccc 07:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Look who's back. Shlama :) Chaldean 13:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm a historian but I can't prove it". lol — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:45 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Xubuntu vs Zenwalk

Do you have any experience with Zenwalk? I'm currently running Xubuntu which runs great on a low-power PC but I was wondering if Zenwalk would perform any better. I hear it's based on Slackware which is supposed to be really efficient but I have not run it before. Do you have any experience with Zenwalk or Slackware? Sharru Kinnu III 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went and installed it myself and found out. It's pretty good actually. It's very efficient though less refined than Xubuntu. I think with a little bit more refinement and we have ourselves a wonderful distro. Sharru Kinnu III 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs

I say it's time to split the articles and on each article explain the movements to unite and the different nationalistic movements. Explain the Chaldean perspective. Explain the Syriac perspective and the Aramaean movement. Explain the Assyrian perpective and Assyrian nationlism. The uniting article should be Syriac Christianity. What I'm getting at is that each perspective on why they feel they are that group should be thoroughly explained as well as the opposing groups counter to that claim and in the end explain that ultimately they are united by more similarites than differences. There are countless perspectives on this issue. Many feel that they are all of these people merged. Some feel connected to one and not the other. And some are blatant ultra-nationalists. Sharru Kinnu III 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rktect

Has this user been a problem before now? 209.244.42.97 20:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see he has been blocked thrice and arbitrated once.209.244.42.97 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brēšîṯ îṯau-wâ Melṯâ

Hello Gareth,

In the image Brēšîṯ îṯau-wâ Melṯâ you created, the two waws connect to the right (in the serto version). Shouldn't they be written in their normal form? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It was fine when I typed it, but I think some bit of software had a problem with using unlinked waws in the middle of words. — Gareth Hughes 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Catholic Church of the East

Our "professor" wants to change the name of the Church. Can you please clearfy the meaning behind the name to these Chaldean Aussie teens please - Talk:Assyrian_Church_of_the_East#Questioning_the_name_of_the_Church Chaldean 08:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting User 38.117.139.174 be banned permanently

Gareth, I just noticed that User:ImmortalGoddezz fixed the Imette St. Guillen page from a change which I consider malicious from user 38.117.139.174. This person, whoever he/she may be, has done this before on Imette's page in July. Please check the history of the Imette St. Guillen page. FYI, I have reason to believe that this person is someone I know here at my firm. Let me know if my I.P. matches this person, thank you. Also, please let Candice User:ImmortalGoddezz know, thank you again.--MurderWatcher1 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's 4:41 p.m. New York City time and the above user did it again! I undid what he did but please block this user!--MurderWatcher1 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: It's 5:48 p.m. New York City time and I saw that 38.117.139.174 left a comment on the talk page for Imette St. Guillen. ImmortalGoddezz and I left our respective comments.--MurderWatcher1 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian talk page reversion by Elias Alucard

Can you rule on weather his revert is justified. I feel the subject matter I posted is VERY relative to the subject matter of the article and I'm not at all interested in a edit war over a talk page so I'm asking you to rule on weather it should be retained or reverted. Sharru Kinnu III 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Garzo has given up on us. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:26 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Quite indeed so. Sharru Kinnu III 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you blame him? I have clean my hands from the project for right now as well. Chaldean 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Template cleanup

A few templates you created, Template:Liturgical year/west/show and Template:Liturgical year/east/show, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infingement on California Kingsnake article

I am a relatively inactive wikipedia user, but I was randomly checking pages when I stumbled upon the California Kingsnakearticle, and the content within seems to be fully copied from http://www.petclubuk.com/view/page.do?id=362, and I am completely unaware as to what to do in this situation, and as such, found an admin from the admin list (I selected randomly o.0) I trust you know what to do :) Chaos Reaver 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[9]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

More on the Imette St. Guillen page from the Malicious User

GARZO: I left a message for ImmortalGoddezz but please check the discussion page for Imette St. Guillen, specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imette_St._Guillen&diff=prev&oldid=154801608

and you'll see this user left a comment which he/she deleted, directed at me. I believe that this user is one of the bar people who worked at The Falls, mentioned on Imette's page. Thank you.--MurderWatcher1 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request help with article Ancient Egypt

As you are listed as a member of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, I'd like to recruit your help in reviewing the article Ancient Egypt. The article is listed as top priority in the Wikiproject and as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, but appears to have failed to meet Good Article criteria at its last nomination. The article is in need of some serious attention.

In the past week, I asked for (and got) the article to be semi-protected to protect against the constant barrage of vandalism. This protection lasts for two weeks. I also did a little clean-up, added a map and so on. I would like to see everyone in Wikiproject:AncientEgypt have the chance to add their input to Ancient Egypt, and get the article up to featured status as soon as possible. I believe the article is at least 80% of the way there, and some focused attention will bring it the rest of the way.

The most pressing concerns seem to be the culture/architecture section, and the achievements/unsolved problems sections. Also, the entire article, especially the achievements section, the sources, and external links need to be seriously checked for accuracy. These sections also require a little organization too.

Ancient Egypt ought to be the top priority of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, and I look forward to working with everyone to get this article cleaned up and hopefully promoted to featured status. Thanks for your help, Jeff Dahl 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian identity

Hello Garzo, I think you should listen to this interview (wait a few seconds and it'll pop up). An anti-Assyrian like yourself, I'm sure this project will break your heart once it's released. Enjoy! :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:25 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, make sure to pay attention to the fact that the producers behind this project is one Chaldean Catholic and one Syriac Orthodox. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:27 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. I don't appreciate your labelling either. — Gareth Hughes 11:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, your decline just proves my point. You are one-sided, anti-Assyrian, and you refuse to listen to what he have to say. You're nowhere being "neutral" and objective as you claim to be. If you were, you'd at least give this interview a chance. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:00 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, c'mon. Chill out. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, I apologize for those remarks. But Garzo, what do you say about we start collaborating again, and I get my act and temper together? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:42 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My warning

I would like to say I DID NOT do the vandalism to the "fall of constantinople" page. I never remember doing those edits I saw in the history. I am sorry if it was somebody else on my IP, but it was not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.219.156 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I listened to Aboun.ogg

I've only begun studying Syriac, but was curious about your use of begad kepat in the chant. Specifically, it sounded as if your use of "bet" never mutates after a vowel.

I have heard both "awoon d'washmaya" and "avoon d'vashmaya", but never "aboon d'bashmaya". Is it just a different regional dialect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchristopherlittle (talk • contribs) 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Good luck with learning Syriac. How are you learning the language? There are a number of differing pronunciations of Syriac. In the recording, I use a pronunciation that is usually used in Syriac Orthodox liturgy, from which this setting is taken. In this pronunciation, the letter bēt is often pronounced as if with quššāyā. You will also hear the zqāpā vowel pronounced as 'o'. There are a few other features that differ in this text from a 'classical' pronunciation. — Gareth Hughes 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Syriac by Wheeler Thackston. It's a very very slow process... Compounded that I'm guessing at best about pronounciation based on his guide. --Jchristopherlittle 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchristopherlittle

Thackston can be a bit tough. I know it's popular in the US, but I don't think anyone in Europe uses it. Robinson (Paradigms and Exercises) is the old favourite, but I think Healey's First Studies in Syriac is probably the best there is on the market. Thackston is just a little odd in its presentation, but it's main draw back is that it uses unvocalised Syriac. This discourages the learner from pronouncing the phrases, which hampers familiarisation of the language. I'm all for exposing students to unvocalised texts, as it's important when dealing with real texts, but I do feel that it's better to work without vowels once one has a basic grasp of the language. Having said that, I know a number of people who learnt with Thackston and have done well for themselves. — Gareth Hughes 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ܫܠܡܐ ܐܚܐ ܡܝܩܪܐ

Hi there Gareth! I was wondering why the Kurds are trying to make Adiabene and Corduene Kurdish? We all know Adiabene was Syriac/Assyrian and not Kurdish, and we all know the Kurds origin is not in Mesopotamia originally.--Yohanun 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For exactly the same reason you want them to be Assyrian: politics. It is done by the piecing together of vague references to 'Assyrian' or 'Kurd' with some none-too-clever analysis. It's all rather sad, and I don't want anything to do with the rewriting of history for political ends. Please don't let this response be an invitation to meaningless discussion. — Gareth Hughes 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Politics and BS asside, the Kurds and Arabs did the same thing in Arabization and Kurdification and sadly you are right to an extent. Some modern Assyrians are going through hell and high water to Assyrianize anything remotely related to Syrian or Assyrian. Again I would like to point out that we're Syrians meaning Aramaic-speaking Christians and not Aramaeans because in terms of history they Aramaicized the middle east after Akkadian faded away and yada yada yada after Christianity to distinguish themselves from the pagans called themselves Syrian. The only reason Assyrian or Syriac are used today is to distinguish between us and Syrian nationals [and with that the implication of an Arabic identity]. It's sad how close the Aramaean and Assyrian movements are in that they try to fall back on our ancient identities that were dissolved into newer ones when we already have a Syrian identity that is unfortunately hijacked by the [Arab] state of Syria. Sharru Kinnu III 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, Yohanun, they are trying to rewrite history and Kurdify history so that they can say: "This is my native land, my people has lived here for centuries, we Kurds are the indigenous people of Kurdistan." Like Garzo says, it's all about politics. Of course, the Kurds are lying about this, and they're using Wikipedia to act as a propaganda machine for Americans and others to believe their lies. If you ask me, I think it's very pathetic. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:43 04 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I do not agree with the anti-Kurdish sentiments propounded by the previous poster. — Gareth Hughes 21:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, Gareth. Stick to your neutrality then. I also find it very interesting when you say, For exactly the same reason you want them to be Assyrian: politics. It is done by the piecing together of vague references to 'Assyrian' or 'Kurd' with some none-too-clever analysis. — Are you somehow implying that Adiabene wasn't Assyrian? Are you insinuating that we are trying to rewrite history? This is very interesting Gareth. Who said anything about that we want it to be Assyrian? I hate to break it down to you, but that is what it was, more or less. Why else would Simo Parpola write in his scholarly article that Adiabene had an Assyrian identity? Look Garzo, I think your stance on trying to be NPOV, is commendable, and while you deserve respect for that, you are trying to be way too neutral, which in the long run, hurts your credibility because you are so afraid of offending one or another ethnic group with facts, that you are in the end, not being neutral yourself. Are you actually implying there were Kurds in Adiabene? We are talking about an entire millennia before the Kurdish language existed. I think it's quite dishonest of you, to make us equals with the Kurds on this matter; implying that we are just like them trying to "rewrite history," is basically an attack on us Assyrians as an ethnic group. We are simply trying to document our history, based on the reliable academic sources we have. Kurds on the other hand, are trying to rewrite history to their own advantage, regardless of if it's true or not. It's about politics, and you know it. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:35 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again! Maybe I should support the Adiabene for Jews campaign: it's far easier to prove than these cases. The problem here is the application of modern ethnic labels to places that used such things in very different ways. If you bend the historical record enough, you can get it to say all sorts of stuff: it's still bad methodology. If your personal views dictate what kind of answer you want, it's a clearly biased answer. In this respect, Assyrianist claims are flawed in exactly the same way as Kurdish claims: for the period we're looking it, no one is 'Assyrian' or 'Kurdish' in anyway that one would recognise equating to the modern use of these of these terms. Certainly, the early Aramaic-speaking Christians of the region did not describe themselves in such a way (nor did they until centuries later). There were speakers of Iranian languages living in the area, who could be claimed as Kurds as narrowly as Assyrians could be claimed. Is Parpola the only academic you like? Are all your sources available as PDFs from AINA? Have you ever received any education from a registered institution of higher learning in any of these subject areas? What does that leave? Nothing very authoritative really. I really have had enough of this ethnic soap-boxing. Please, don't reply saying that I'm a racist or anti-Assyrianist just because I don't agree with you: that's just childish nonsense. — Gareth Hughes 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I care very little about Adiabene, to be honest. It seems to me, you define Aramaic speaking Christians as just that: Aramaic speaking Christians. This is not that different from the media label on Assyrians in Iraq: "Iraqi Christians." Basically, stripping us away from our ethnic identity. Being a speaker of an Indo-Iranian language doesn't make you a Kurd. They might as well have been ethnic Persians, which is more likely to me, considering that the Persians dominated a lot of the Middle East at the time. Was there anything called "Kurd" at the time? As for academics, no, Parpola isn't the only one I like. But it sure doesn't hurt, that he has claimed in his article that Adiabene had an Assyrian identity. To my knowledge, no serious scholar or academic has refuted him so far. I'd be happy to read more on why he considers Adiabene to have been of Assyrian identity. But I don't think he's an idiot risking his entire credibility as a professional academic and Assyriologist, by making things up about the ethnic make-up of Adiabene. Have you read this by the way? Isn't it interesting how the Jews are supporting their allies the Kurds right now? You couldn't have said it better: politics. PDFs from AINA is basically an ad hominem, not a well thought out one either. AIAN is only publishing academic material (with permission). It's not AINA we are citing about our ethnic identity. Bringing up AINA, is totally beside the point and AINA is irrelevant as far as this goes. Oh and hey Garzo, I've never accused you of being a "racist." You devalue that word when you apply it on someone who is criticizing an ethnic group on legitimate grounds. Racist, is someone who believes there are racial and biological differences between various ethnic groups, and thereby, discriminating this or that ethnic group which is considered to be inferior to your own race. As far as I know, you don't believe that. You believe in your 'social constructs' of ethnic groups, which is also why you have such a difficult time accepting that we are Assyrians, since you don't believe in us having a biological descent from the ancient Assyrians' race. But hey, social constructs for the win, or whatever... — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:59 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Gareth. Hope all is well. Chaldean 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way Garzo, I forgot to reply about the "anti-Assyrian" remark. Looking back at your archive, I found this. I swear, I just discovered this. It seems, User:Chaldean has gotten the same feeling of you about this, as I have. Look, I don't think you are anti-Assyrian. I don't think you hate us and our people. But it stands to reason, that you are giving the impression of believing that our Assyrian ethnic identity, is false. That is the impression I get from you at certain times. On the other hand, you can be supportive of our claim as being Assyrians. Look Gareth, I have a lot of respect for you. I mean that. It's not every day I meet a European who knows as much about us as you do. Most Europeans think we're Arabs and they usually very ignorant about us and our history. You on the other hand, aren't. You deserve a lot of respect for that. But, you do give a very mixed message. I understand that you don't want to take sides, because you probably know a lot of Suryoye who don't identify as Assyrians, and you don't want to offend them. That's fine. I can understand your position. You want to be everybody's friend. But here's what it breaks down to: this is our ethnicity, our ancestry, and our lineage we're talking about. We don't take such a thing lightly. How would you feel if people told you: you are not British, your ancestors were wiped out, you are just an English speaking Christian, bla bla bla? When you make statements such as this: For exactly the same reason you want them to be Assyrian: politics. It is done by the piecing together of vague references to 'Assyrian' or 'Kurd' with some none-too-clever analysis. — you're basically putting down our Assyrian ethnicity into a relative and obscure status. I think it's a grave insult, especially considering the situation of Assyrians in the Middle East right now, and in Iraq where we are being persecuted by Kurds, who on top of that, try to erase us from the history books by making up false, unsourced statements about Adiabene having been a Kurdish kingdom and a lot of other bullshit about Medes etcetera. We are at the brink of extinction as a people, and now is not the time to fight each other over "Aramaean" this or "Chaldean" that. We need to stomp out these false Church identities and be united as Assyrians if we expect to survive. You're really not helping our cause and our people by your mixed messages. Now, if you have any doubts about our ethnic identity, write a scholarly, academic, heavily referenced, peer-reviewed essay about it, and let it be examined by several Assyriologists and other scholars. If it stands the test of examination, and you can somehow prove that we aren't Assyrians and they'll take your word for it and concur with your essay and its conclusions, then you have proven your point, and your essay will be a WP:RS and used as a source to cite on Wikipedia. Until then, I will take the word of Parpola, Saggs, Frye, Biggs, and other experts over yours. You say you've had enough of this ethnic soap-boxing? I can understand that. Looking back at your archives, it seems a lot of us have wasted your time on this. You don't want to be a part of it any more? That's fine. You don't have to. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:35 05 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat qualified to speak on matters regarding Syriac and the history of Mesopotamia. This is a matter of record and not through some kind of genetic right to deny anyone else's stance. I have edited WP because I found articles that were severely lacking in good content. I think I've done a good job. I have constantly been harried by various 'involved parties' wanting to have things their way. I have always maintained that 'ethnicity' is a dubious substance and is highly politicized in most cases. I have tried to resist the ethnic politicization of articles, and have been confronted by ranting nationalists all the way. It is clear that the label 'Assyrian' is rejected by a significant part of the populace to whom it's applied. You can say they're in denial, but that's the truth of the matter. I do not believe that any reputable scholar actually says what you want to hear, even those you list — that those who call themselves Assyrian today are descended from those who called themselves Assyrian in the past — they may say that it's possible, but no one can offer anything more than that. I know that the evidence from manuscripts is clear that Aramaic-speaking Christians did not call themselves 'Assyrian' until relatively recently, but that has been denied without any given reason. I did write this all out, but then decided not to bother: after all, this is only Wikipedia, and I do have better things to do than wrestle with those who fight facts with ranting. I think the archives clearly show, Elias, what I have done and what you have done, and they clearly speak in my favour as the respected voice of reason here: you know what your record shows. — Gareth Hughes 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All right Gareth, that'll be enough from you. I tried to be courteous but instead I got a reply from you, where you aggrandize yourself, and try to paint me as some ranting nationalist. I think it's quite intellectually dishonest of you to resort to such cheap measures as ad hominem attacks. What you're saying, is basically: "You are a nationalist, therefore, you are wrong and I'm right because I have accumulated more respect amongst Wikipedians". That's not a good argument Gareth, and you should consider thinking through your logic a bit more when you're involved in discussion like these instead of focusing on me personally. As if being a nationalist makes you automatically wrong in just about everything. What caught my attention however, was that you claimed that the Assyrian name attached to the Aramaic-speaking Christians, is something "recent". This is not true. "Assyrian" can be traced back until at the very least, 16th and 17th century on both Nestorians and Jacobites (source). As far as Chaldeans go, I do not consider us to be anything but "Nestorian" Catholics, which makes us just as much Assyrian as the rest of the Nestorians are (though of course, many Chaldeans are very thick-headed and refuse to accept facts). It is however, true that the Aramaeanist movement is something recent. Now, you can continue to portray yourself as some kind of "respected" guy. That is totally irrelevant in the real world. You can have all the respect in the world. At the end of the day, what matters here on Wikipedia is what you can cite. You have been unwilling to cite academic material which is in favour of our Assyrian identity, regardless of if it is a fact. This is what you call, "NPOV". NPOV doesn't mean you should ignore facts. As for the Church fathers not writing Assyrian early on, that is your statement, no sources are cited so far. That's another thing about you, you always present yourself as some sort of expert on this matter. While you do have a lot of knowledge about us, do not take for granted that everything you say will automatically be accepted as unquestionable facts by me and others. You will have to be able to cite what you contribute on Wikipedia. Your knowledge and expertise here doesn't matter if you can't cite it. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:08 06 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree that this is the WRONG forum for your political ambitions Elias. I say if you're that passionate about the Assyrian cause take it to another level. Wikipedia is a waste of life in that sense. This is an encyclopedia and definately not a perfect one nor is Britannica for that matter. Just work on the articles and steer clear of politics. I think we as Souryayeh and those who are experts on the matter can all agree that we have all referred to ourselves as Souryayeh since Christendom which translates as Syrian and before that we were a product of the ancient empires of Assyria/Babylonia and the Aramean tribes that settled within those empires whom were later conquered by Medes and Persians. We nowadays say Assyrian or Syriac to avoid confusion with Syrian Nationals though that doesn't mean you can equate Aramean with Syriac or Assyrian with Syrian in retrospect and have it be fully accurate because though the names may have related histories or common origination it doesn't mean they can be fully used interchangebly retroactively. We are able to use any of these names but the point of Assyrian nationalism is to unite under one banner and I would assume the Aramean movement serves the same purpose though in rejection to the Assyrian label but sadly both serve the same purpose of replacing Syrian just becauase a political entity may render some confusion as to our identity. That is the real story. Sharru Kinnu III 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously fail to understand that Suryoyo/Suryaya is very much related to Assurayu and that it is no coincidence that we speak Aramaic (which the ancient Assyrians did) and that we call ourselves Syrians. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that somehow contradicts that we are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians (and a few other Semitic peoples in the region). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:10 06 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Gareth, don't bother to reply. You say you've had enough, and you shouldn't waste more time on this discussion. It's obvious we're getting nowhere because you've decided to stick your head in the sand. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:14 06 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat qualified to speak on matters regarding Syriac and the history of Mesopotamia. This is a matter of record and not through some kind of genetic right to deny anyone else's stance. I have edited WP because I found articles that were severely lacking in good content. I think I've done a good job. — By the way, for the record, in case it didn't come through, despite all our disagreements and quarrels, I do appreciate your work here on Wikipedia and I do think you're a stabilizing factor and I don't mind if you continue editing articles related to our people and culture. I also think you've done a fairly good job and I do have respect for you, even if you obviously don't respect me because you think I'm a ranting nationalist. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 02:10 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

ܒܪܺܫܺܝܬ

Hello Gareth,

In the Syriac alphabet, you've included an image with the first words from the Gospel according to John, in the three Syriac scripts. There are a few mistakes, I believe, with connections between letters, and a dotted beth, for example. Shouldn't it be like this: ܒܪܺܫܺܝܬ ܐܻܬܰܘܗܝ ܗܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬܳܐ I am not familiar with PNG, otherwise I would've fixed it myself.

Take care, Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Benne! I think the mistake happened somewhere in the image creation process. I had noticed it before, but I didn't realise it wasn't displaying properly when I uploaded it. I tried it again, and my software broke the text again. It maybe needs a different approach. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gareth: I've just uploaded another version to the Commons that has the ligature artefacts removed.

Benne: The dot is fine over the Beth, as in Serto scripts it denotes qushaya. אמר Steve Caruso 06:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic Wikipedia

Have you noticed that most of the articles that do exist in Aramaic are about a sentence or two long and have very general descriptions. I figured if someone was good at translating the English articles directly into Aramaic it would be a lot better. Sharru Kinnu III 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Request to add your opinion/vote to renaming of KV62 -> Tomb of Tutankhamen

As someone whose opinion I value, I am asking if you would take a peek at Talk:KV62, and voice your opinion on the suggested move. I am not trying to solicit an Oppose vote, but instead am trying am asking people who have an active interest in things Ancient Egyptian to contribute to the talk as well. Cheers! Captmondo 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll seems to have closed without consensus, which is a keep. With redirects, it seems fine to use the name KV62 for the tomb, as it avoids so many other stylistic and interpretative issues. Let me know if this one gets active again. — Gareth Hughes 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)