User talk:Wlaak

Welcome!

Hi User623921! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shmayo (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ant Wan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Untamed1910 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used the talk page, I was left without a answer for over 24h. It was only one other editor that I was discussing with, none of the sources state he was Assyrian. User623921 (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding edit warring despite attempts to come to a compromise. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Ant Wan".The discussion is about the topic Ant Wan.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anıtlı, Midyat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medallions. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left an edit summary, simply put: the teams are not Assyrians, hence the name Syrianska (Aramaic/Syriac). They are rivals to the Assyrian football teams, and their derbies have sparked a lot of "beef" between the two factions. For example, Syrianska FC and all Syrianska teams are acknowledged to be of Syriac-Aramean heritage. Arameisk-Syrianska IF literally has 'Syriac-Aramean' in its name.

For any Assyrian team, you'd look for 'Assyriska.' Thank you. User623921 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are still the same people and part of the same community. Just doesn't really make sense to remove all of the Aramean identifying teams from the page, I believe many of them were splits of Assyrian teams when they first founded. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not part of a Assyrian people, their teams are rivals. I will make a category for Syriac-Aramean teams. No, they were not split from the Assyrian teams, they were established by Syriac-Arameans. What stops you from labeling the Assyrian teams as Aramean since they are part of the Aramean community? Community is not ethnicity, and the Syrianska teams are far from being in the same community as the Assyrian teams. User623921 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden, you may be blocked from editing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already left a adequate explanation, which other articles are you referring to?

You left this thread with no response, the list you referenced is to football teams, not people. User623921 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 27 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaining experience

I don't want to sidetrack that ANI thread more than it already has been, so here I am. Again, I really recommend avoiding the Aramean/Assyrian topic area in general until you're a more experienced editor. I see on this talk page already a bunch of noticeboard links and template warnings. Continuing in this vein leads almost inevitably to topic bans or even indefinite blocks. I get it - you joined wikipedia for the same reason most of us did: "something is wrong on the internet!" And you want to correct that something. But editing about something you have really firmly held opinions about while you're still a newbie is a recipe for disaster, especially when it's in a topic area like religion and ethnicity.

You've heard all that before, and evidently it hasn't persuaded you, so let me say one more thing: if you fail at achieving your goal of an Aramean spin-out page, you will have established a formal consensus against having that article. After that, it will be much harder for you or anyone else to build the consensus you actually want to achieve. You will have a much easier time convincing other editors that you have the right of it once you have more experience with Wikipedia editing in general. Learn by doing, in somewhere where the stakes aren't so high for you. I'd be happy to help you find something to do that you're interested in beyond Aramean identity.

Further, it looks to me like there might be some off-wiki co-ordination happening here. Do not do this. This is a very good way to get all of you banned. (See WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT.) Keep discussions about editing you plan to do on Wikipedia. There's also a semi-official community-run WP:DISCORD if that appeals to you. -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thank you for being understanding, i will do my best on the Aramean people article, and of course i will try and convince the other editors of this.

i am not really sure what off-wiki co-ordination exactly means but i can assure you that i am anonymous on wikipedia and have no plans on discussing or these matters with anyone outside of here User623921 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey again @Asilvering, i have two questions, 1 is: is this not considered POV? two people trying everything to find something to hold on to in order for their agenda to go through? in this case to have the Assyrian name prevailing in all of WikiPedia with no Aramean recognition or presentation, even though Aramean people would meet WikiPedia's guidelines?

the second question is: if i were to continue on a draft, would it be possible to have admins/non involved editors review it before sending it for AfC review? to minimize the risk of forks or any other broken guidelines?

sorry for constantly replying to the dispute, i'll avoid it unless i am mentioned. User623921 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It very well could be pov-based editing, yes. However, yours clearly is pov-based editing, so I'd warn you against throwing stones in a glass house. We don't really care if someone has a point of view - everyone does - but we do care if someone is attempting to push their pov against consensus or otherwise disrupting normal Wikipedia editing. Our articles need to be written in WP:NPOV, though, and if your draft is a WP:POVFORK, that's no good. You're welcome to ask for input on your draft at any time. I'd suggest asking for that kind of help at WP:TEA. The actual AfC review will be done by a non-involved editor. But again, none of that would prevent the resulting article from being deleted as a result of an AfD discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

got it. i understand that everyone has POV, but is there no guideline that forbids pushing a POV that will stop the development of the encyclopeida? in this case the development would be Aramean people. User623921 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it's not appropriate for editors to block the creation of an article called Aramean people, if you can achieve consensus that this is a different topic. But you haven't managed that yet. Right now, there is an existing, though quite old, consensus that this is all one people, just by different names ([1]), which you would have to be able to convincingly argue against. So far, you do not appear to have managed to convince anyone who is not already on your side. One way you could try to do that is to write the draft on Aramean people, but, like I said, that's somewhat risky. I think you'll have better success fixing the parent article first. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, notability dictates whether a subject deserves a article or not, please see this comment I've made, is this not sufficient enough notability that deserves its own page? I am not expecting to convince the ones that are pro-Assyrian to be in favor of a Aramean article, since they've been denying one for decades, I was thinking more about the non-involved editors, such as you?

Is there not enough notability? User623921 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability isn't the only factor. We also have WP:PAGEDECIDE. In this case, notability isn't really a factor at all, since the claim of the "no separate page" side is this: The division between "Syriac" and "Assyrian" is not a division between two ethnic groups, but between two ideological perspectives on a single one: a division between several ideological factions among the group's diaspora communities in the west, which all prefer different names and have different ideas about their cultural "identity", but which all still claim to be speaking for this one, single, native minority population in the Middle East. If this is correct, then Syriac/Assyrian/Aramean/etc should all be dealt with on the same article, and the question then is simply what the name of that article should be. So for you to have a separate article on just Arameans, you'd have to show that you're not talking about one, single, native minority population in the Middle East, but that Arameans are in fact a completely different people. -- asilvering (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmm ok, never heard of this. Arameans and Assyrians both have separate pages on the Dutch and German WikiPedia and on the english, multiple minorities considered to be one single population also have separate articles, such as Zazas and Kurds, Sephardic and Ashkekenzi Jews and many more. User623921 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the same issue, at least not as it's described in that DRV. Sephardi and Ashkenazi are not two different words for Jews, but words for two different populations of Jews. Neither group would describe the other as unacceptably "pro-Jew". -- asilvering (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps not the exact same issue, but the analogy is there, subgroups of one ethnic people have different pages, and if this was the case how come the Dutch and German WikiPedia pages work great and follow guidelines while still having separate articles? User623921 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These questions are really underscoring my point about how you will have a much easier time of this if you get more Wikipedia experience first before jumping into a really contentious issue. -- asilvering (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i understand this, however, Arameans have for decades tried to have their own article, there are currently Aramean related articles on WikiPedia such as Aramean (Syriac) football clubs, World Council of Arameans, Aramean-Syriac flag, yet no modern Aramean presentation.

i am not trying to rush things and edit out of POV, therefore creating a draft, but this issue is long overdue for a resolution.

i was thinking maybe we can have a split discussion on Arameans, splitting the ancient content and moving it to perhaps Aram (region) (maybe rename to history of aramean people) and then create a article about modern Arameans on the current Arameans.

maybe split discussion and then maybe RfC or DRN? User623921 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering i have evidence of off-wiki coordination between a group of people sharing similar POV, engaging in creating the pages together and targeting the same type of topics, they have a group outside of WikiPedia in which I know have found evidence on, that is image/timestamp of how a certain page looked like vs. their chats on a messaging platform, coordinating their edits simultaneously.

where can i report this? Wlaak (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am not too sure, but would this be meatpuppetry? as he brings others to edit the pages with him, i.e he is the meatpuppet master of another account i have identified. Wlaak (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak, since that involves off-wiki evidence, you should email it to arbcom. See User:Arbitration Committee. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syriac Orthodox Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Descendants. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book source

If you could find me the ISBN or author name, I can try to find the rest. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey.

Hengel, M. (2004). Studies in Early Christology. Academic Paperback Series. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-567-04280-4. Retrieved 1 November 2019.

unfortunately the URL leads to a Google book which has locked page 331. Wlaak (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No luck. Try asking at Wikipedia:RX. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the effort! Wlaak (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aramean people

Hi! I noticed that you’re working on an article about modern Arameans, and I’d like to offer a few suggestions. In the past, one of the main issues with similar articles has been the problem of content fork—meaning the material did not sufficiently distinguish itself from the Assyrian people, (ancient) Aramean,… articles. Unfortunately, your current draft also seems to be heading in that direction.

To strengthen the article, I recommend structuring the content in a way that clearly differentiates it from those existing entries. For example, the history of the ancient Arameans could be kept brief, while placing greater emphasis on the local history of ancient Arameans in the Tur'Abdin region and on how this history relates to the identity of today’s Arameans from that area, where most identify specifically as Arameans. This particular perspective is currently missing from both the (ancient) Aramean and Assyrian people articles.

The Assyrian people article, for instance, follows the narrative that modern Assyrians are direct descendants of the ancient Assyrians. As such, content that specifically addresses Aramean identity would be out of place in that article. This in itself supports the need for a separate article dedicated to the Aramean people.

It’s essential to support the article with high-quality academic sources. Additionally, you should highlight the political activism of Arameans—especially their struggle for recognition as a distinct ethnic minority. A notable example is Israel, where Arameans have already been officially recognized, reinforcing the argument that they are not simply a "subgroup" as inaccurately suggested in the Assyrian people article, which in its current form reflects a biased narrative.

In summary, I would recommend narrowing the focus of the article to modern Aramean communities in Tur'Abdin, northern Israel and Maaloula, with an emphasis on: • Political activism and efforts toward official recognition • Local historical developments tied to Aramean identity • Cultural and linguistic elements that distinguish Arameans from modern Assyrians, such as contemporary church hymns that specifically celebrate Aramean heritage--2A02:3031:205:D594:605A:B99F:F54F:7D87 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot. I could see similarities between the current Aramean article and the draft I am working on, but no similarities between the Assyrian people and the draft I am working on, I thought I should write of the history chronological, that is from antiquity up until modern times, but thank you! I will make sure to keep the antiquity section shorter to avoid similarities.

I appreciate all of your comments, could you perhaps join me on creating the article? Fill the draft with sections etc. Wlaak (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Wlaak! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Name change., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:High-importance Aram (Suryoye) articles

A tag has been placed on Category:High-importance Aram (Suryoye) articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 03:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Shmayo (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Wlaak! Your additions to Draft:Aramean people have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shamoun Hanne Haydo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarıköy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft's Infobox

The draft's infobox has information about population as "500" and the number "1" for a list of countries. Do you mean that the world population is 500, and one person in each of these countries? David notMD (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no sorry, i just put that in to have the structure. to have the flags etc. i will fill the correct population later on Wlaak (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to User talk:Miaphysis, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ::::User:Wlaak - Do not tell another editor not to edit an article unless you can tell that what policy or guideline is involved. There isn't a policy or guideline that permits an editor to assert ownership of an article because of a content dispute, let alone an incorrectly filed conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes 100%, it was just that there was 30 minutes of IP edits going on, it was very weird Wlaak (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]