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]

AfC notification: Draft:Aramean people has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Aramean people. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aramean people has been accepted

Aramean people, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aramean people for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aramean people is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean people until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Shmayo (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per the consensus generated at WP:AN/I, you are hereby subject to an indefinite topic ban from all Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects, broadly construed. This restriction applies to all namespaces, i.e. ANYwhere on the project. This topic ban may be appealed to WP:AN in six months time. This restriction has been duly logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Wlaak. If you have questions about this topic ban, please feel free to ask. Such a request will not constitute a violation of the topic ban. However, any other edits that you undertake which mention, refer to, are about, or otherwise in any respect are related to Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects outside of asking clarifying questions about your topic ban will be considered a violation of said ban and will result in site wide blocks of your editing privileges. You are now on a slippery slope. Continuing as you have been before is not an option moving forward. Please edit carefully. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: For clarity, it would be good to specifically say whether they are allowed to continue the discussion they started at WP:AARV about Draft:Aramean people, which they started before this topic ban was enacted. I would assume they have to stop participating there - and I strongly recommend Wlaak not post there any more unless you give them the OK - but I'm trying to nip any claims of lack of clarity in the bud. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floq (and Wlaak); yes the topic ban applies to that too. I actually had started to craft something there to instruct others that (a) Wlaak had been topic banned from the subject and (b) that discussing Wlaak would be... and words failed me. I couldn't figure out a way to craft the words in ways that made sense. If you can craft something, please feel free. But, again to the point; yes the topic ban applies to that discussion, and to any discussion they've been involved in that relates to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac topics. This means bowing out of those discussions, regardless of their state. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you were posting here, I was posting a note to that page. Thanks for the clarity, I think it probably saved us a complication or two. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder is the ban technical? Like is it impossible for me to do edits in this topic (the system won't allow me to push edits) or is it that I am just forbidden to? Wlaak (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bans are social, not technical, so the system doesn't restrict you from making edits (that is one of the differences between bans and blocks). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha okay thank you, but in that case how will I be able to know where the line is? I do not want to edit something and then find out it is against the rules which then would lead to my ban. I understand the main areas and articles Aramean, Assyrian etc. but what about creating articles about people that are notable within said communities? Wlaak (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are broadly defined, but you're allowed to ask if you have any doubt. Notable figures in the communities most likely fall under it, since writing their articles would involve mentioning their identity and/or role in the communities to some extent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, for me to appeal in 6 months is it necessary that I have done something under these 6 months? Or can I just log off and come back in 6 months and appeal? Wlaak (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any strict requirement (appeals go to the community), but it would be very helpful to edit in other areas to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia processes in the meanwhile. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wlaak, thanks for asking clarifying questions above. This shows a willingness to abide by the topic ban, which is a positive step in the right direction. I want to confirm what others said above; topic bans are not done via technical means, as there isn't a means to do so. It is up to the person who is under a topic ban to use their judgment to determine if something would fall within the topic ban or not. To be frank, this is dangerous territory. While you might think something isn't under the umbrella of the topic ban, there are others who might think so and end up reporting you for it. Asking the question you did above about articles about people is a great way forward. Feel free to ping me or anyone else who you feel would provide useful insight (such as Chaotic Enby, whose answers above are excellent) to ask before making such edits. I want to be clear; we want you to succeed. We really do! This isn't a trap set for you where there's some gotcha that's going to be sprung on you because you're too inexperienced to know better. Ask as many questions about this topic ban as you like. Just don't edit anything if you have any reason to doubt if it would be under the topic ban. As for editing while this topic ban is in place; PLEASE do so! You are very welcome here! Further, editing in other areas will show progress in understanding how to work within this project, and will go a long way towards supporting removal of the topic ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. Thank you and @Chaotic Enby for the help and kindness, I appreciate it! Wlaak (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ensure you read Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban. I've added a link to it just now above in my initial comment on this thread. Please carefully read that link. Again, if you have questions about the topic ban or ANY doubts about what you're editing or commenting about as to whether it is covered by the topic ban, ASK FIRST rather than make the edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But to be honest, I want to file ArbCom. I’m not okay with how this topic ban was closed. There was a lot of gray area. Nearly everyone who supported the ban was already against me in the content dispute. Two of the few neutral editors said they’d only support it if it was reciprocal, and that didn’t happen. One even struck their support. Still, the ban went through. I was banned before the page was draftified, so I couldn’t respond. What’s worse is that the AfD closed with “no consensus” and a clear expectation that the article would be re-tested later. Almost everyone agreed on that. But instead, it was moved to draft and locked down. That goes directly against what the AfD closure implied. It feels like the process was ignored and I was shut out for trying to follow it. ArbCom is the only place left to fairly review this I think...

I am not blaming you because I do not know what you could have done in that situation, I bet that it is very different than me just talking but still, I just do not think this procedure went how it was supposed to go.

Is there something I need to think about when contacting ArbCom? If denied there too, will the outcome for me be worse? Should I follow any structure or presentation? Wlaak (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, I do not think ArbCom would be very helpful here. Firstly, because, while the topic bans were a conduct issue, the crux of the problem is very much a content issue. And the community, not ArbCom, has to decide on the content of the encyclopedia – it isn't something that gets imposed from above, and an ArbCom case won't get the discussion much further.

If you want an idea of how ArbCom works, you can take a look at one of their recent cases, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke. At no point in their decision did they state "Yasuke should/shouldn't be called a samurai", despite it being the dispute that sparked the case.

You do mention "a clear expectation that the article would be re-tested later". I agree with you that this expectation was there, and I am confident that there will be another, more organized discussion. Maybe not exclusively on this article, as the dispute is a bit wider than just this, but it is clearly an essential point that will be discussed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the dispute really comes down to this, whether if the article should be represented on Wiki, it is the core of the dispute. But I still feel it was closed not so according to procedure, I just do not see a good reason to have given me only the tban. It cannot hurt filing ArbCom, or can it? I do not know if it can make things worse for me. Wlaak (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can. It will make the whole situation even messier and more confrontational, not actually help resolve the dispute, and the baggage of an ArbCom case might even make it harder to appeal your topic ban.

While the "main" editor on the other side of the dispute, Surayeproject3, isn't officially topic banned, they have agreed to stepped away from the crux of the dispute – what Asilvering would call a "brokered ceasefire", and which was our hope for both sides at first. That way, you don't have to worry about POV-pushing happening during your topic ban, and I don't think ArbCom would come to a more helpful outcome. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you @Chaotic Enby. Rather be safe than sorry, don't want to make things worse than they already are. I will just hope that the Draft and main articles aren't subject to any POV. Wlaak (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wlaak; I concur with what Chaotic Enby has said. I do want to add on that should you decide to file an ArbCom request, at a minimum you should wait until after the discussion at WP:AARV has concluded. If you don't, ArbCom will surely say that a case request before them is premature. I want to be perfectly clear that I am not trying to dissuade you in doing that in any respect either with what I've just said, or the following: You don't appear ready to drop the stick and back away from this problem. You are continuing to pursue this as if the topic ban doesn't exist, and that will not bode well for you at ArbCom in trying to get the topic ban overturned. You don't get it over turned by continuing to violate it and insisting it's wrong at the same time. I'm going to lay out the violations that have already happened in comments below. Please take this to heart as advice meant in good faith that I am trying to help you. I don't give two hoots if ArbCom thinks I screwed everything up. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take your advice to heart Wlaak (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wlaak; since the topic ban has been placed you have repeatedly violated the topic ban. I've tried to help you understand how to not violate it, but the violations keep happening:

(for clarity; note that the topic ban went into effect at 23:59, 13 October 2025 with this diff, and at the very latest at 00:05, 14 May 2025 with this diff)

08:47, 14 May 2025 [2]: You voice a lack of understanding of the topic ban, but then start talking about the dispute which in part generated the topic ban. This is a clear violation. Perhaps understandable because you don't understand the topic ban. But, to know you are uncertain about the topic ban...and then violate it? Some patience was in order.
17:27, 14 May 2025 [3]: You begin complaining about what's happening at Draft:Aramean people. This is an unequivocal violation of your topic ban. You go on to complain about Draft:Assyrian identity crisis, a draft which is covered by your topic ban. Another violation. You then ask if you are allowed to speak about things like this. I responded that you are not permitted to do so. Despite this...
18:27, 14 May 2025 [4]: You claim you are being completely silent, yet you complain about the Draft:Aramean people falling into someone else's control (note: you do not own anything on Wikipedia) and it being ruined. I then tell you that this is a violation of your topic ban [5].
18:31, 14 May 2025 [6]: You again are discussing the dispute that, in part, resulted in your topic ban. Asilvering calls you out on it telling you that this is a violation of your topic ban [7]. I agree, it is.
20:34, 14 May 2025 [8]: You start out fine discussing the topic ban only, and then start commenting about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean people AfD. This is an unequivocal violation of the topic ban. The topic ban means you are no longer part of the conversation regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean people. The topic ban specifically states you are banned from the Aramean subject, yet here you are discussing the Aramean people AfD, despite me telling you that you shouldn't be doing so.
20:45, 14 May 2025 [9]: Still discussing Draft:Aramean people. Another unequivocal violation of the topic ban. You say you're going to step down from this topic to avoid more sanctions upon you, so it seems you do understand that what you are doing is violating your topic ban...yet you kept doing it anyway.
21:06, 14 May 2025 [10]: Less than half an hour later, and you're still discussing the Aramean people article, which as above is an unequivocal violation of your topic ban. You do this despite saying you're going to stop doing so (20:45, 14 May 2025).
22:09, 14 May 2025 [11]: And here you are still talking about the draft and the article. Another unequivocal violation of the topic ban.

Let me be absolutely blunt; the topic ban has been described to you in great detail. You have no grounds on which to claim you do not understand the topic ban. Your own comments make it clear (20:45, 14 May 2025) that you understand your are violating it. Yet, within the first 24 hours of the application of the topic ban you have violated it no less than eight times. I can understand you might initially have some lack of understanding of the topic ban. Some allowance for that was given, but has now been trod upon like a used tissue. I've said before that you need to back away from this. I've been patient with you trying to explain this, yet you keep violating the topic ban over and over and over and over again.

You're just not getting it, and I'm at a loss as to how it is that you're not getting it, especially given that you seem to understand that you're violating the topic ban yet keep doing it anyway. You seem completely incapable of walking away from this dispute. Part of the point of the topic ban is to get you OUT of the dispute, yet you INSIST on being part of it DESPITE the topic ban.

The patience for continued violations is now gone. Consider this an absolute FINAL WARNING; there will be no further warnings or allowances given. If you violate the topic ban again, I will make a request that you be blocked for the violation. I could make the block myself, but as I've tried very hard to help you through this (to no avail, I might add) someone might construe I am somehow WP:INVOLVED and should not act. But, given the evidence above I consider it extremely unlikely that you will not be blocked for violating your topic ban if you do so again. It's your choice what you choose to do moving forward. I hope you choose wisely. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Do not worry. I am not going to be doing anything more. Wlaak (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating

I wanted to discuss the topic of WP:BLUDGEON with you, as it was raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean people. On that AfD, there were approximately 48 printed pages worth of non-signature text. Of that, your comments comprised about 21 pages. You were far and away the most frequent and most verbose editor on that AfD [12]. I'm not saying this to chastise you. I'm laying that out so you understand the parameters.

When are are close to a subject, it can be very hard to distance ourselves, to take a step back and view things more dispassionately. I've fallen into this myself, and it rarely works out well. What it tends to do is to poison the discussion rather than help it. People begin to generate animosity towards the person rather than focus on improving the encyclopedia. I.e., the bludgeoning becomes its own enemy. You're trying to get people to agree with you to keep the AfD, but are actually causing the opposite to happen. People start to look for any excuse to oppose what you are saying, rather than themselves having a dispassionate view to the subject.

There's also the issue that walls of text are rarely going to be read. Everyone here is a volunteer, and every action someone does is volunteering their precious time. Few people enjoy reading walls of text trying to sift through a discussion to determine the best path forward or, as in the case of a person closing the discussion, trying to find if there is consensus or not. You're making people's desire to volunteer become more difficult rather than easier.

There's a place here on Wikipedia where when you submit evidence of something, you are drastically limited as to the number of words and links. I once had to provide something there, and found myself slashing and burning my way through what I said. It took a long time to hone my message to something that was digestible. In the future, I would encourage you to do similar; before hitting "Publish changes", work over the text and eliminate as much as possible. Antoine de Saint-Exupery famously said, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." It's good advice for writers too.

Ironically, I must apologize for the wall of text above :) But, I hope it helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hammersoft. I do understand the WP:BLUDGEON and walls of text, the issue is like you say "it can be very hard to distance ourselves". It often ends up to wanting the last say/prove the other party wrong. I get it is wrong, 100%, and I will definitely try my best to change that.

I was also wondering about the topic ban, its set to indefinite and after 6 months I can appeal. Is there no way I can appeal to get a set date instead of indefinite? 6 months is a long time and i genuinely don't know if I will even remember about logging back on after 6 months. I also feel that nearly everyone on the "support" side of me getting tbanned was in fact on the other side of the "POV" i.e. they had their POV against my POV, same happened on the AfD. Wlaak (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change the terms of the topic ban, as it is the community that voiced support/opposition to the topic ban as written. Thus, I can't change it from indefinite to a specific range, nor change the length. That would be giving me a "super vote", if you will. All I can do is analyze community consensus and act accordingly. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I appeal and ask for shorter time/specific range? That way community can decide? Wlaak (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The process to appeal a topic ban is outlined at WP:UNBAN. Personally, I find the process to be very lacking. The topic ban is under review at WP:AARV, but there is some opposition to the discussion happening there. I doubt anything is going to come of that discussion if for no other reason than that. The next step, such as it is, is to appeal to ArbCom. I think this is a dramatic escalation. ArbCom is supposed to be a last resort step, the last step in dispute resolution. This doesn't feel like the last step, and there should be intermediary steps. But, there aren't. I very much doubt a request for arbitration would be accepted, but I could be wrong and I'm not saying that to dissuade you in any respect. I do suggest that a better course of action for you would be to find other areas of the project in which you can contribute. There's almost 7 million articles on this project, and I think (as memory serves a rule of thumb says...) there are twice that many outside of article space. The areas from which you are topic banned cover an incredibly small fraction of that. You've proven yourself to be intelligent and obviously eloquent. I am sure there are other topics of interest to you than what is covered by the topic ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Sirfurboy was correct in their statements at User_talk:Sirfurboy#14_May. It can be awkward at first to understand where the edges of the topic ban are. That is why they almost always include the phrasing "broadly construed". Your comment there could be construed as violating the topic ban. I wouldn't apply a block for that, nor in my opinion should any administrator. It's the first 24 hours of the topic ban. Some lack of clarity is to be expected, and it shouldn't a trap (as I mentioned before). But, do please tread carefully. Even sideways references that don't mention specific articles directly can be interpreted by some as violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft am I allowed to edit Ant Wan, I saw a revert was made on the date he stopped his career because it was unreferenced. it does mention Assyrian but it is only the date i want to edit. if i am not allowed, you can use this reference if you want to do it yourself [13] Wlaak (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly construed means broadly construed. The article mentions he was born to an Assyrian family. This is obvious; no you may NOT edit that article while the topic ban is in place. Further, asking me or anyone else to do it for you could be construed as a violation of WP:PROXYING policy. I don't have an independent reason for making this edit. I won't be making the edit. Further, if you ask someone outside of Wikipedia to make this edit and they make it on your behalf, it's still a violation of WP:PROXYING. Wlaak, STOP. Stop looking at ANYthing related to Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects, remove such pages from your watchlist to stop tormenting yourself, and walk away from this. I don't know how many times this has to be said for you to get the message. Drop the stick and walk away. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I did not know it was like this, it was in no means to contribute anything related to the dispute. Only a news event that happened today... sorry. He was a very famous artist from Sweden. But okay, I understand. Wlaak (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak, (Sorry to but in @Hammersoft) to make it as simple as possible if it has the words Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac anywhere even once in the article DO NOT edit it; avoid it like it is on fire. If you remotely think it is related, walk away and find something else to work on. @Hammersoft is being extremely patient, I would advise against testing their patience. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean football clubs moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Aramean football clubs. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and It also needs more sourcing so as to satisfy WP:VERIFY. It also appears that this article contains WP:OR.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]