User talk:Garzo/archive

Shlama
Throughout the beginning years, I don't know how I ever lost your "Wiki respect" (and I don't know if you will ever see me as a trusted Wiki user.) But first I was wondering if you could give me your opinion regarding the creations of guidelines when it comes to the Aramaic/Syriac language - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac%29; I know you have previously said Syriac is at its most strictly form, a reference to classical Syriac and not what Assyrians speak today. So I'm not sure if I have done it right or not. If you are interested in the topic, I hope you get a chance to read my latest work; Athura (I used a section of your's from Aramaic language.) Reviews/criticism are welcomed. Chaldean (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shlama! Well I did get quite fed up with all this ethnic stuff being touted around as ancient history when most of it was a romantic recreation of the 19th century. I know that sort of talk is blasphemy to nationalists, but it's true that most countries and 'ethnic' groups have constructed their myth of origin. The problem here is intensified by the fact that different groups are arguing for different 'ethnicities' within the same group. I've tried to stay out of the squabbles and deal with purely historical articles, but every so often someone wants to inject some modern nationalism into an article about a late-antique figure.
 * I don't blame you for getting sick of it and not being bothered by it, but it shouldn't make you completly ignore all these issues. Chaldean (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what exactly you want to know about guidelines: they should be common sense and fit well with the overall aim and 'feel' of other guidelines. You might need to be a little more specific for me to say much more than that.
 * So that we don't have revert-wars going on in pages. For example; Armota - is it ok to say "Assyrian"? Or what should be the standard use when refering to the language we speak; Syriac or Aramaic? Assyrian people - when refering to the language they speak, what should be used, Syriac or Aramaic? And I think its valid to use Assyrian at certian places, as it is used by the government of Australia and the United States, to name a few examples. Chaldean (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on Achaemenid Assyria looks quite polished already. The Syriac text (ܐܬܘܪܐ) at the top of the infobox is anachronous; the official Aramaic of the Achaemenids was written in square script (אתורא). In the lead, the words 'original Assyrian homeland' would be better put in more neutral terms: you are referring to the city-states of the Assyrian Empire (Nineveh, Nimrud, Assur) and the central area of their control in northern Mesopotamia. I say this because 'original Assyrian homeland' looks like it's taken from a nationalist manifesto, and also it precludes the agreed fact that the Assyrians settled in the region at some earlier point in history (i.e. came from somewhere else). There is also a problem with the question who owns Aramaic. Originally it was the language of Aramaean settlers in the Fertile Crescent. It has been borrowed by many civilisations: the Neo-Assyrian Empire employed it as an official language, as did the Achaemenid Empire — it is the borrowing of a borrowing. So, to call the language 'Assyrian' is somewhat misleading, as, in historical terms, 'Assyrian language' refers strictly to northern dialect Akkadian. I would also be a bit wary of using too many references to the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies; although some of its articles are of a reasonable standard it is not the peer-reviewed academic journal it tries to pass itself off to be. However, I think you are quoting Parpola articles that have been reprinted by JAAS, so they should be safe. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take your advice, remove Assyrian homeland link and the other suggestions you brought up. Thank you again. Chaldean (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything that belongs to members of the Church of the East may be labelled 'Assyrian' without much contention. Occasionally, it might be better to use 'Modern Assyrian' so as to avoid confusion with Ancient Assyria. However, there are some who desire this confusion. In an encyclopaedia, 'Assyrian language', when used without qualification, should refer to that variety of Akkadian, and not to Imperial Aramaic, Classical Syriac or Neo-Aramaic, which all have accepted, technical names. Among Chaldaeans, some prefer 'Assyrian', others 'Chaldaean'. In some cases, it might be better to say 'a Chaldaean village' when this is demonstrably true (the villagers are members of the Chaldaean Catholic Church), rather than 'an Assyrian village' when that label might be debated. That is to say, if an accurate denominational label can be used, it might be better than a debatable 'ethnic' one. This doesn't serve the purpose of unity, nationalism etc. well, but it is dealing in demonstrable fact rather than debatable categorization. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Assyrian language - Gareth, who are we to set the rules in English? I tend to look at the phrase Assyrian language today as a reference to Sooreth, the way Sayfo is to Assyrian genocide. The question is today, in English, what is meant by Assyrian language. You are correct about mostly refering to Akkadian, but that is only in the historical contents. Today, it is an alternative name to Sooreth. Its not like Assyrian nationalist are making this up, you have the American and Australian government using Assyrian rather then Syriac as a listing of language spoken at home.
 * I still didn't get my question answered in terms of the resolution; When referring to the language spoken by, what you like to call, Syriac Christians, what should their language be called; Syriac or Aramaic. Example; Alqosh - Alqosh or Alqush (Syriac: ܐܠܩܘܫ, Arabic: القوش)  - should it be Syriac or Aramaic? Example; Middle_east - Other languages spoken in the region include Armenian, Syriac (a form of Aramaic) - should it be Syriac or Aramaic? We need to have a single rule so that Wikipedia's page be consistent. Chaldean (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[] among others. Chaldean (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Every year Benne likes to start this problem []. What is the point of having such users in Wikipedia? What contributions do they put in? Chaldean (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [] Nationlist warriors screwing historic people. Chaldean (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fake as always, I think it was you and EliasAlucard who screwed up on this. I just provided a source wich states that he consider himselfs Aramean or Syriac, and not Assyrian as it was before I changed it (and with a source that didn't say anything about him being Assyrian). And look what I've found. Chaldean changing it to Assyrian, with the comment "the source says assyrian". The TriZ (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying, that source [] does say Assyrian. I have removed Assyrian and Aramean altogether for the sake of the qualify of the article. Garzo will agree that these historic people should be off-limits to Assyrian-Syriac nationalist wars. Go fight it out in other pages, but these historic pages should not be touched. Chaldean (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was saying that it doesn't, have you read that? Go fight it out in other pages? It is you fighting and creating editwars. The TriZ (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

about jewish people who spoke aramaic language in villages around van lake.
Hello I need to do some research Can you give more information about jewish people who spoke aramaic language in villages around van lake? And if you share your source and tell me where you find these information,I would be happy.

Thank you B. Barokas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.254.85 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that much about the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Van, though it is probably related to those of Cizre, Başkale and other towns. Most speakers emigrated to Israel, and almost all research into Jewish Neo-Aramaic is done in Israel. Many dialects are now extinct, the others are near extinction. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Alhambra?
I never edited that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.212.96 (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you do not create an account, you are represented by your IP address, which may be reallocated by your IP to someone else. Your IP address has edited the article in question. To avoid seeing messages intended for other users of your IP address, you should create an account. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:UE
HI I am informing you on the following discussions referring to the usage of diacritics on en.wiki. It seem there is a movement/campaign of some peple (moreover administrators) which try to eliminate them from the usage on en .wiki. Or at least to minimize, even for personal names in Latin script

Since I have seen your name in some discussions I thought it would be nice to inform you. Pay attention to the following pages :WP:UE, Usage of diacritics and similar ones if you are interested. Anto (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair trade GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Fair trade and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAR
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Language
Dear Garzo, last edit on Turkish Language was explained in talk page and is different from last reversions. The edit was represented by views of arguers on talk page. There is no edit war, discussion on talk page continues. Kaygtr (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have issue with the last edit, which you made after finding a compromise on the talk page. However, seeing the actions of editors on the article over the last few days, I wonder how long it might be until another reverts or alters it. Having no wish to decree which version is better, I felt it better to impose protection to allow the page to cool for a while with a relatively well-agreed version showing. Protecting a page for a few days often means that transient users move on or away from the argument, allowing established editors to regain some agreement. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please expain you objections
Please explain your statements "partisan" and "unencyclopedic". The two articles in question present a lot of "revised history" or an attempt to rewrite the facts with propaganda. They have been edited with a attempt to present a false history, contrary to statements and facts already at hand. Eyewitnesses accounts and articles previous published disprove these edits. The truth is not always convenient. I know they attempt to cover up the facts in the movement, but they say they are more "scriptural" than the "pagan Christians". Then why not do what Paul did to those in his churches that were involved in incest and adultery? Their behavior is recorded for all time in the Bible. The Bible is not a book that covers up things, see David and Bathsheba. (I noticed that charges of adultery were left in the article, I wonder why? But the expanded historical version was deleted...hummm) I can pretty well guess the reason for trying to conceal the real historical facts, having been in the movement for over 3 decades. There is an agenda to rewrite history with a false history. Perhaps we should rewrite the history of the Popes as well so that their history looks better and they appear in a more "Godly" "holy" fashion? I can always tell when I am dealing with the SNM people, statements like "Jesus is the name of a pagan god" or connected to Zeus because "sus" is a pigs head, an offering to Zeus (Meyer). "God is the name of a pagan idol" "Christ is the name of a pagan god" (or as MEYER says it refers to sexual intercourse or a practice used to anoint prostitutes or gay folks --- just plain stupid). If your eyes are bugging out reading this, just think about those of us that are reading and listening to the tapes that have been put out by them, so we can get the actual facts. It takes days of reading and listening to tapes to come up with an accurate account.

And "ax grinding" (anyone who disagrees with us or our doctrine - they scream persecution or "I'm being attacked" and they really get irate when someone leaks the truth about thing on the inside out of the group...). I know too much to not have been is this movement for many many years..... PS how does one go about getting in contact with someone that is an editor here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.64.220 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, 'unencyclopaedic' is a statement of style, but may also refer to content. Your edits to include text that one would not expect in an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedic text is expected to be based on facts and a survey of considered opinion; it is expected to be neutral and objective. 'Partisan' then is what looks like the reason why this is so. It appears to me that you wish to make a point in the article, a point based on your own subjective perspective. While I concede to you that the article looks like it contains a certain bias already, I feel that your attempt to redress this bias is a hypercorrection introducing greater bias. I would like to see statements fully referenced in the text by reliable sources: we cannot accept hearsay or insider knowledge. We can mark up all statements that seem objectionable in the original text. The article's talk page can be used for discussion on specific issues. Finally, most of what you wrote above is not directly relevant to the discussion; I suggest you use less rhetoric and use a more detailed report of which bits of text should be corrected. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sacred Name Movement Page
Would like input on how to address the Anon and the vandalism on the SNM page? WEMUS (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's vandalism. The article is biased, and users are fighting over which bias they prefer. The problem seems to be that no one wants a neutral article. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Maltese language
Could you please point me to a discussion which concerns this part of the infobox? There appears to be a recent discussion concerning Maltese classification itself, and it seems to have been decided to enter the other viewpoints in - so surely that means it wouldn't be wise for us to enforce the afro-asiatic family color onto the article. Cheers Poklopichika (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you have newly created an account and entered directly into a controversial edit. There has been discussion about classification, which is reflected by the infobox. There is consensus that the language is technically Semitic however much Romance influence it has received. I also note that there is serious concern of sock-puppetry on the talk page, so I have concerns about your account. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no discussion about the infobox itself. You are also mistaken on your other point as well. There is no consensus in any way that the language is "technically" Semitic, but there is consensus that the language is genetically Semitic - there is a difference. "Technically", Maltese has been classified as a whole variety of things, including Semitic, Mixed, Creoloid, and even on some occaisions, some have ventured to go as far as to call it Romance. Anyway, you don't need to take my word for this; the article already reads this. Since several linguistic circles disagree with Maltese being "technically" Semitic, I don't think it's such a good idea to specify an infobox colour. If we do choose one, it would be seen as controversial and I don't think it would particularly adhere to Wikipedia's so called neutrality. Also, thank you for your accusations of me having multiple accounts. Not only is this uncivil, attacking new users, and not assuming good faith, but I find it personally insulting. Besides, most sock-puppets are single purpose accounts - and my edits havn't been to one article - oh, but I'm probably just doing that to convince people I'm not the prolific vandal that I really am, aren't I. I certainly wouldn't have expected this from a Christian by all means. Good night to you Poklopichika (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are twisting my words: Maltese is Semitic, genetically, and hence technically. There is consensus in Wikipedia on this, and academically. Semitic languages are Afro-Asiatic, so we use a yellow infobox. So, your response is bizarre. The talk page has discussed all those who would like Maltese classified differently, and the consensus is against doing so. Your edit leaves the text of the article saying that Maltese is Semitic, yet removes the infobox's colour that indicates it as Semitic. The text mandates the colour, and a change should be discussed on the talk page. So far, you haven't taken part of any discussion. The infobox remained yellow at the end of the discussion of the classification of Maltese, because that colour represents and Afro-Asiatic language. It would be fair if you used the article talk page to discuss such a change. Making the box white is not being neutral, but introducing undue doubt in the agreed classification. As for your account, I indicated that your editing pattern matches that of sock puppets, and that this is after the use of such accounts has been raised as a concern on the talk page. My identity is open, while you retain the right to anonymity. While anonymous, it is bad form to remark in such a way about my religious belief or anything else I choose to be open about. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But that's the issue - The article doesn't say Maltese "is Semitic". It says it is ancestrally so, but is now classified in various ways. Poklopichika (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article does say that Maltese is a Semitic language. The article says "It is the only Semitic language written in the Latin alphabet in its standard form". Semitic is a genetic classification, so a language cannot loose that status. Romance is also a genetic classification, so a language cannot become Romance. You seem not to have read the article or the discussion, and you appear to have no understanding of linguistics. You cannot use your interpretation as spelt out here as justification for your actions. You are now expected to use the article talk page to justify why your change is mandated, and if you fail to gain consensus, you must not continue to make your change. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Gareth. These accounts are almost certainly sockpuppets of indefinitely banned users (Italian fascists campaigning for Maltese to be classified as a dialect of Italian); I'll report them to checkuser when I have time in a couple of days. I wouldn't bother trying to reason with them.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Checkuser is the right course of action. I've put the article under temporary semi-protection to prevent sockpuppetry being used for strongarm editing. Let's see how it works. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but why have you semi-protected the page when no IPs have been editing it? Perhaps you meant to full-protect it? Either way, the socks are continuing to vandalise the page while I build my checkuser case!--Yolgnu (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On user has made these changes to the article. There are a few changes of nomenclature, but I don't see any real problem with it. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the only real problem is that he's a sock puppet of an indefinitely banned user--Yolgnu (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All those account identified as sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely. I hope that's good riddance to this petty annoyance. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic Primacy
Dear Garzo,

Yesterday I made some comments on Aramaic primacy along with a link to an article which discussed "Which Language Did Jesus Speak - Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?" As Administrator you accused me of spamming and deleted my entire entry. My intention was to provide legitimate discussion material on this subject and provide a link for more information. You have also deleted previously entered web link that I inserted on other articles relative to Aramaic. My purpose is to provide unbiased information on Aramaic with an emphasis on the Peshitta. I am a novice user of Wikipedia and twice your biological age. Beyond deletions and threats do you have any other advice to offer me in the use of Wikipedia? Several years ago at a Syriac Symposium as well as in numerous discussions with Chaldean and Assyrian priests and scholars, I noticed that although many scholars do not acknowledge Dr. Lamsa's work openly because it goes against the grain of Western scholarship, privately they highly respect him and his work. I would like to enter into open dialog without my words being edited away. Would it be part of your vocation to assist?

Shlama Amkhon,

James J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdefancisco (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear James,


 * You are clearly publicising your book, as can be seen from your edit history. I have provided you with links to Wikipedia's guidelines for external links each time I have removed your material. Use of Wikipedia for advertising is against those guidelines, it is considered spam, and you have clearly contravened them. Your latest edit to contained more than a simple link to your website, but still contained that link. The additional text added did not enhance the article in any way, and offered rather vague terms about certain 'scholars'. We have found on this issue that when the 'scholars' are named, their academic credentials are, at best, flimsy. I have read the material on your website, and find it to be riddled with inaccuracies and misunderstandings of the text and its history. Lamsa's books are not given much credit in academia because they're not very good; his translation clearly shows that he did not have a strong grasp of the language he was translating; privately, he was a nice guy. So, there are two clear points: you are using Wikipedia for advertising, which is forbidden, and you are promoting a flawed collection of second-hand material as scholarly work. As for 'deletions and threats', it has taken this long of my warning you for you to talk about it. Such stubbornness means that you will be blocked for using Wikipedia as a marketing tool the next time you add your own website to an article. You should discuss first, before ignoring legitimate advice to stop. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Garzo,

Thank you for your clarifications. I understand that I violated Wikipedia policy but my motive was not to intentionally violate policy. The links you provided should prove to be useful in keeping me within compliance. You do seem to be very judgmental and biased. I mentioned that I am new to Wikipedia editing but I guess I should have explicitly told you that I just became aware of your entries and warnings. Your use of language is very interesting: "flawed collection of second-hand material", "stubbornness", "ignoring . . . ", etc. Were these remarks really legitimate and worthy of a scholar of your stature? I have read your facebook but have you read Mattai 5-7. It is unfortunate that numerous "flimsy scholars" may promote Aramaic Primacy. Actually, some of the "flimsy" scholars I spoke with have references and links in your article and you would know them and respect them. I don't mention their names because it would create some stress among the scholarly community and the conversations were private. None of them openly profess Aramaic Primacy. In any event, it has been very enlightening to communicate with you and, if your reactionary judgment is indicative of your church, I have added to my understanding of why the Anglican church has experienced so much division. By the way, I do not have "my book" on my website and only promote free articles, resources at nominal cost, and the works of others at this point in time. The main book on Aramaic Primacy that I promote on my site is NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN, a fairly well documented book by Lamsa. It is worthy of study even though it is a very simple book. You have produced an excellent feature article on Aramaic Language but your article on Aramaic Primacy is biased, in my opinion. Beyond that, communicating with you has been quite an experience.

Shlama,

James J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. Jdefancisco (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding [[User:Jdefancisco|Jdefancisco (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)]] comment added by Jdefancisco (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Garzo,

I have added 3 texts to the bibliography and, hopefully, you will find no fault with at least adding them. I have added no links or references to my website but these scholars are relevant to the subject and have diverse views which are valuable in researching this topic. I doubt you will have problems with Fitzmyer. I don't know how you feel about Torrey. And, I know, Lamsa was a nice guy but a unsatifactory scholar but he produced the best book on the subject of Aramaic Primacy in my opinion (even though I do not agree with all of his conclusions). If you have a problem with these additions, which I assure you were done in the interest of objectivity, please let me know before pulling the plug on me with your sanctions.

Dominus vobiscum,

Jamees J. DeFrancisco, Ph.D. Jdefancisco (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been away for a bit. The three items in the bibliography are fine of course. For neutrality, the article should provide a breadth of views without giving undue weight to minority or unqualified positions.


 * The furthest mainstream scholarship will go towards NT Aramaic primacy is that the gospels may have utilised some early Aramaic sources, which were unlikely to have been written sources. We have a wealth of early NT manuscripts from a number of sources and written in Greek and various translations. All of these translations point to Greek originals. The earliest extant Aramaic NT manuscripts are the Old Syriac Gospels. The Diatessaron is older, but all we have are fragments in Ephrem the Syrian, and it is famously slippery to pin down.


 * Lamsa and your book use the Peshitta. Its OT is quite old and translated from Hebrew, but its NT is a separate, later translation. This translation incorporates some text from the Old Syriac and Diatessaron, but all three are translated from Greek texts. I believe it is misleading to dress it up as anything more. The Lamsa line, which you seem to follow, is that the Peshitta preserves a first-century NT and the origin of the Greek. This is not supported by any manuscript evidence, and the 'evidence' presented by primacists is the flimsy 'it looks a bit like this'.


 * Well, it doesn't. As for your comments about my church: leave it alone. I could likewise ask you why you sign PhD after your name: what's it in and where's it from? As for my initial exchanges with you, they were in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding inappropriate external links, the messages were all preconfigured templates, which you would have been notified about each time you loaded any page on the site. Further messages were added because you kept adding links to your own website after being informed of the policy. I added a new template after each transgression, and got to three. The third tells you you will be blocked. I followed policy, and it took you three warnings before you decided to talk. I don't think it's fair to say that I was being tough on you. If you had got in touch straight away, you wouldn't have got to the tough message. If you hadn't got in touch when you did, your account would have been temporarily blocked. I shouldn't have had to say to you stop or you'll get blocked before you ask why. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Garzo. Why'd you delete my comment. Love thy neighbour as thyself please [] Kght (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Getoar
Hi. User:Getoar keeps reverting a compromise that User:Ijanderson977 came up with on the talk page of Serbian language, see compromise here. He has reverted the compromise twice within the past few days. I reverted him once, and I was tempted to revert him again, but I thought it would be better to come to you first. Thanks. --Tocino, 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Maltese
It seems Maltese language is being visited by one or two sockpuppets of some of the previously banned users.Could you take a look?·Maunus· ƛ · 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddfellows
Hi Garzo, I had a word with User:Pdfpdf about his revert of your edit and accompanying edit summary at Oddfellows.  Dei z  talk 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I've had time to write a few thoughts on the article talk page, which I hope will help. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ephrem the Syrian
Hello,

I had some (mild) concerns with a paragraph in the article which I briefly touched on in my comments on the article discussion page and I thought I would notify you since you wrote the material in that section and thought you might like to address it there if changes can (or should be) made to improve the article. Thanks. Awotter (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and effort on the article btw.Awotter (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Syriac distribution
Hallo, do you know anything about use of (Classical) Syriac as a liturgical language in the following communities: Thanks in advance. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ma'loula
 * Maronites - the article says "Syriac (Christian Aramaic) still remains the liturgical language of the Maronite Church", but R.G.Roberson in his "The Eastern Christian churches" writes that after Arab conquest they use the Arabic language for their liturgy (back translation from Russian).
 * various jurisdictions of Saint Thomas Christians - are they really still use Syriac in some form or another; if so - are there differences between different jurisdictions?


 * Hello, Yuri. Yes, I can give you some information on this:
 * In Ma‘loula, the traditional language is Western Neo-Aramaic (Syriac is an Eastern Middle Aramaic language), which has been somewhat preserved by government efforts. The Christians of Ma‘loula are mostly Greek Orthodox or Catholic, and so Syriac plays no part in their liturgy. I don't know of any churches in the Syriac liturgical tradition in Ma‘loula.
 * The Maronite Church traditionally uses Syriac as its liturgical language. However, Arabic has been used increasingly in the last few centuries, and the amount of Syriac in use is minimal.
 * On the whole, Saint Thomas Christians worship in Malayalam. However, the various liturgical traditions are based on East and West Syriac rites. Syriac is still used to provide liturgical terms and other technological vocabulary, including a few fossilised phrases.
 * Let me know, if you want further information on these. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gareth! It will greatly help me. Only one last detail:


 * 1) So in Ma'loula they use Arabic in their liturgy as in the rest of Greek Orthodox and Catholic? --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the liturgy is in Arabic, with a few phrases retained in Greek. There is no liturgy in Western Neo-Aramaic. The Aramaic texts of the Lord's Prayer that are sold to tourists are in classical Syriac. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hor Haggidgad
What OR did I put in this article? You deleted my referenced edit, and called your edit a minor edit. I'm confused. I can understand getting rid of Rktect stuff, which is what I'd done, replacing it with some sourced information. You'll see I've removed some stuff from Abronah also and tagged other claims which had no page numbers with nothing turning up on Google, maybe Rktect again. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of the article on Hor Haggidgad, I can see what you mean. I thought I was simply re-adding material deleted by Rktect, and didn't notice your additions. I understand that you are tying to salvage some of Rktect's text, but there is a serious problem with original research with this user. The references provided are usually offered to divert attention from the insertion of the user's personal research on the Exodus stations. The user regularly replaces existing article with own text. I've now re-added the Hebrew in the lead, which is the basis for the article. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry about the Hebrew text. I was tempted to remove the map, I'm glad you did. He's messed up a whole slew of articles related to the Exodus. You should see his discussion on the talk page of Battle of Kadesh, he clearly hasn't a clue about WP:OR.

Protected articles
I notice that you have protected various articles relating to the Illyrians, their language, culture etc, often with factual errors intact! While it is understandable that you do not desire edit wars, the fact remains that many claims/links/expressions in these articles have no cited sources/verification and are merely the POV of some rather vulgar editors. When asked for sources/proof etc as to why certain links are passages should remain in the article, they respond with personal insults and vague claims about "theories" and the like. Yet you have apparently seen fit to lock said articles with these baseless claims and statements still remaining! Attempts to discuss these issues o the relevant discussion pages have led to more personal insults and incoherent diatribes! Since these articles are now locked, I do feel it would be best to remove the controversial links, statements etc until such time as someone can give reliable sources that verify their inclusion, and not merely simple statements such as "that is what everyone knows". 41.245.165.140 (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily semi-protected articles to prevent edit-warring by anonymous users. When I protect an article, I make no judgement as to which is the 'right version', except to try and keep the closest version to consensus. If you have a case, put it on the article talk page. If you cannot gain consensus there, try discussing it more widely. You should create an account if you wish to prove your commitment to the project, and you will be able to avoid semi-protection. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI Discussion
Hi there. There is a discussion pertaining to one of your blocks at WP:ANI. Incidents arising from that discussion are Suspected sock puppets/Dr Rgne and Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Rgne. Just letting you know, in case you would like to comment. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamia
Thanks, it was driving me crazy seeing all the vandalism. Did I read the edit summary right - you used Twinkle? I've got a day to go on my RfA and hopefully will get through it and will be able to protect articles like that when appropriate. There are a few that are getting a lot of IP vandalism recently (well, probably a lot, I'm just thinking of the ones I watch). Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, problem. Best wishes on your RfA. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alleichem
Gareth, a number of us are having issues with the same user. I reported him for 3RR and am uncertain what to do next. Here's part of what I reported:

On the Yahweh page:
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240208642&oldid=240016633
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240230035&oldid=240223416
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240245299&oldid=240231256
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240255680&oldid=240246001

Several of us have tried to discuss WP:UNDUE issues with this user on his talk page:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlleichem&diff=240256304&oldid=240016789

He's also doing this kind of thing on other pages:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_God_in_Judaism&diff=240215272&oldid=240014980
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_%28god%29&diff=240213008&oldid=239588082
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeus&diff=240216358&oldid=240013865
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_God&diff=240260136&oldid=239064950

In any case, what's next? They guy isn't listening, and he's sucking up resources (and reverts) from a number of editors. Any ideas?

Thanks. SkyWriter (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Alleichem has been blocked. This user has certain ideas drawn from things they've read and joining up the dots even though the pictures are in different books. Alleichem thinks they're clever and see things others have missed, but, in reality, they are piecing together fragments of unrelated half-truths, and coming up with a 'truth' that rests on their own personal speculation rather than any of these scraps of evidence. I am certain that there is no value in this user's ideas. This is the kind of writing that sometimes comes from autodidacts who do not have the benefit of a tutor, supervisor or peer review to moderate and cross-check. I have pointed out flaws in their reasoning, but it's like talking to a brick wall. In the end, unless this user learns to respect other users, and gets some perspective on their own 'research', they are being simply disruptive. I'm glad to see that a mediator has offered help. If that works, we may be able to get a useful editor out of them. Hope! — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. The admin who blocked Alleichem saw that I had made five reverts in the past month (two yesterday, two a month ago, and one in between) and he blocked me for good measure. In any case, I appreciate your help here, and I'll be glad to help you keep the peace as well. I'm not sure what the motivation is for proving something they admit they have no single manuscript to attest to (Aramaic priority). It's like Bigfoot. We'd all get excited to see real evidence for either Bigfoot or an Aramaic Matthew, but until a real body shows up... SkyWriter (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Alleichem
An RfC has been started for User:Alleichem. Since you have been a party to disputes with this user, it would be helpful if you could post your opinion there. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I now see that Alleichem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) has been blocked for being another sockpuppet of a previously blocked user. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation link
Hi Garzo, I had hit this site www.pronouncenames.com which is a reasonable site for name pronunciation and so I added it into the external links, similar to howsjay, after reading through Wikipedia's external link requirements & conditions... did I miss something that it has been removed?

— Tweedledum and Tweedledee (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure the sites are that useful even if they pass conditions. The problem is that they use 'sound alike' pronunciation guide, and speakers of English throughout the world use very different pronunciation. The website would only be useful to someone who spoke a similar dialect to the person who wrote the pronunciation. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Little confused here so you would be removing the howjsay link too? Does the same thing --Tweedledum and Tweedledee (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Monotheism
Garzo, If there's anything in particular that you want have problems with my cleanup on the Monotheism page, post it on my talk. Let's try to make it better instead of fighting over reverts. Take care. VedicScience (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your talk page. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I took care of the NPOV issue and removed 'dry monotheism' as you'd suggested. As I add more NPOV edits, please care to point out issues with "original research" (if any) or simply add-in "citation needed" and I'll take care of getting the research in for you. Hope this works~! VedicScience (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shlama
Shlama Gareth, this is User:Chaldean, I have not signed on because I do not want to deal with the headache anymore. Just wanted to let you know that I have moved to Ankawa, and if their was anything you needed from the Churches here (pictures, books, etc) let me know and I'll try to get it to you. Also, if you ever decide to come, know you gotta a house to stay at :) You have my email I believe, so contact me through that, if not, let me know here. 84.11.141.3 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shlama! Dakhi wit? Taudi saggi for your message. I hope your move to Ankawa went well; what the situation like there? I would like to visit Arbela and Mosul some time. Let me know how things go. All the best. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gareth, Ankawa and the rest of Arbil is beautiful. It is so peaceful, you wouldn't think its really Iraq. There are alot of foreigners actually living here. You wouldn't have any problems at all if you came. Mosul and the rest of Ninwe of course is another story. My grandmother is their and told me how they are chasing Christians down like animals. But here in Ankawa its great. It just feels so good to be able to use your own language when walking down the streets, going to shops, etc. For the first time in a long time I'm finally using my language outside of my American home! :) Anyways, sorry for the long wait for reply, still trying to find a situable internet connection. Hope you are keeping in check Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac extremist from various pages. Anyways, if you have any questions, just email me. 81.90.17.4 (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the Hypocrisy?
I've noticed you have sided with a disruptive member Skywriter, to defend views that no mention should be given to the fact that some very notable scholars believe that the Greek New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. These scholars have evidence for their views which cannot be refuted easily. Now, would you please reconsider your views? [] Much appreciated good friend. Kght (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gareth -- this is another Alleichem sock... we have a checkuser under way now. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramean-Syriac people
Hello, i wonder if you have any information about the Syriac culture, such as Cuisine, music, art, litterature, language and add that to the article Aramean-Syriac people. I have contributed alot to the article but now im stuck and i wounder if you could contribute to the article? Thank you. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I used to work on these so-called ethnic articles, but there's just too much nonsense going around with all these different labels. If you have specific questions, I'd be pleased to let you know what I can, but I'm not going to credit any one of these ethnic labels with any more credibility than the next one. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So you cant help? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I could, but too many people get upset when you question the historicity of their ethnic labels. So, I don't want that kind of attention. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then. it would be nice if you could rewrite some parts in the article into better english, since my english is not so good. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe my edit was in accordance with Wikipedia rules
''Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.''

The article I edited was originally BC/AD, as of just last month, until a user changed it to BCE/CE. I was simply changing it back, which I believe is in full accordance with the quote above. I ask for you permission to revert it back. I apologize for not having used the "undo" button from that edit as it probably would have cleared this up. Cheers, LASirus (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see by your edit history that you are only concerned with turning any reference to BCE/CE to BC/AD, so I must consider all changes you make to date eras as dubious. I agree that was originally written with the BC/AD format. It would be helpful if you used an edit summary to make sure it is understood why you are making a certain edit. With your edit history and lack of summaries, all changes you make to date eras are likely to be seen as dubious. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats.
I just wanted to say what a great job you did on the Aramaic language article. It seems to very well written. However, would you explain - that how with all your knowledge on the subject - you side with Skywriter on the issue that the New Testament was definitely written in Greek?

You wrote: "Aramaic was the native language of Jesus (see Aramaic of Jesus)." Also you wrote "However, many consider it probable that there was a Hebrew and/or Aramaic layer beneath the Greek sources to the gospels and maybe parts of Acts.". So why are you being so hypocritical on the Yahweh article. You're siding with Skywriter who claims Aramic originals is similar to Big Foot! [] I feel you're being hypocritical. Kght (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, such big words. What to you seems hypocrisy, is an understanding of the complexity of the issues. Understand that you are dealing with two things in the above argument: the languages Jesus spoke and the original language of the New Testament. We have no direct evidence to the former, and we have oldest documents of the latter in Greek and they don't look like translations. There's a general hypothesis that there may be oral or, less likely, written Aramaic work from which some gospel text draw material. However, no evidence for such a work exists. Reread those sentences to understand that that does not mean what you want it to mean. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

expertise
Greetings Dr. Hughes. There's a dispute ongoing at Battle of Opis about which translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle should be prioritised. It would be great if you can be involved as an expert linguist here:. I know Akkadian and Old Aramaic are not exactly the same, but they are relatives and you might know someone that knows Akkadian. Also given your linguistic talents, it would help with regards to matter of weight. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I've had a look at the text, which is very short. I do not specialise in Akkadian, but I can see what the text says and how it has been variously interpreted. Linguistically, it's difficult to say exactly what happened after the battle. So, I think it would be fair to mention that the text is vague, terse and difficult to interpret here. There is difficulty with certain of the words that could mean a number of things. One could interpret it as Nabonidus' army retreating in disarray, but that seems unlikely. It seems far more likely that the text is saying that Cyrus' army was victorious and carried off the spoils. All this is quite normal for ANE warfare. Apart from the spoils it appears that there was some killing, and it was the Persians who did the slaying. Now, it is difficult to say what 'men of Akkad' means here. I can understand some suggesting that this is a massacre of civilians, which is also an entirely possible outcome in ANE warfare. However, such statements are usually explicit. This, on the other hand, would be a normal description for the soldiers of the army. I would reckon that this line is a reference either to killing enemy soldiers in battle or executing them after the fact. Although the text is not explicit, it makes sense if Cyrus is the actor here. I realise also that this has pro- and anti-Iranian political stances, and it's perhaps best to avoid letting either stance win this one. After all 'shit happens' in war, especially ANE war. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you know someone that knows Akkadian and will take look, I appreciate it.  This way another independent viewpoint can help the mediation.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Gareth! I had the opportunity at the weekend to do a systematic survey of the literature on this question. There appear to have been seven translations of the Nabonidus Chronicle published in English and Dutch since 1925. Five of those (from 1975, 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2007) present a common interpretation of the line - that (a) a massacre was carried out, (b) the Persian were the culprits and (c) the victims were the citizens of Opis. After the battle, the cities of Sippar and Babylon apparently surrendered without a fight. Several writers have commented that this course of events suggests the massacre was a deliberate act to send a message to other potential resisters. That sort of thing was, of course, fairly commonplace in the ancient world (the Romans had a particular tendency to massacre the inhabitants of besieged and rebellious cities pour encourager les autres - cf. Massacre of Thessaloniki etc). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some advice
Hi Garzo,

Thank you so much for editing my additions to the Durham City entry with the de-capitalisation of the titles. This is my first time writing anything on here and I just wanted to know if the style was okay and I had cited right? I did everything from the Name section through Civil War and Commonwealth and Historic geography. Also, it seems like I have expanded the article by 50 per cent. Is this allowed as I don't want to be doing something I'm not allowed to!

Any advice much appreciated if you have the time.

Best wishes

Alex --Aj.amatosi (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex,


 * It looks like you've put a lot of work into the article. I was simply keeping your additions in line with Wikipedia style (you can look at WP:MOS if you want to find out more). Citations matter most when exact facts (like the population figure) or controversial information are included. As long as the citations make sense, are verifiable and used to support statements they do support, there's not too much to worry about. Only when exactness and controversy are issues, does there have to be greater scrutiny of sources. The manual of style has details on the nitty-gritty of citations if you want to get them absolutely right. I think long articles are fine as long as the headings are used to split it up into sensible chunks. There's always the option of spinning off some content into a new article linked from the main one (e.g. History of Durham City) if you think it would be better served there. Keep up the good work. Basically, anything that feels right and good for an encyclopaedia is fine. There are rules and guidelines and all sorts of things, but someone will draw your attention to them, if they feel the need.


 * Have fun,


 * Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For What It's Worth
It's nice to catch a scholar online. Glad you're here. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean Christians
Why did you lock the page? And why did you choose to keep the page that lacks resources and changes the resources that were already given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 October 2008


 * I locked the page to stop an edit war. I chose the version that was preferred by more than one editor, as your version is only preferred by you. Unless you reach consensus with others, your version will get nowhere. Locking the page helps you do this, because you can no longer pretend to enforce your view on the article. I have no view and prefer neither version. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The present article is not the original and keeps getting changed by 2 or 3 users who constantly change several articles. They also just edit their discussion pages so that no one is able to have a discussion or reach a consensus. Quotes are also erased and replaced with ones that do not exist yet are still wrongfully cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That must be very upsetting for you. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it become unprotected? Unless you actually do prefer a certain version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian ?
I've just reverted a couple of edits to Aramaic dialect pages that added "and Aramaean-Syrians" to "Assyrians" because I recall some debate in the past about how the term "Assyrian" is inclusive. Now I'm second-guessing my memory. Is my memory bad? (Taivo (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

French language
I've moved French (language) back to French language, which is correct according to Naming conventions (languages). I'm not sure what you read in MOS, but the interpretation was not the intended one. With controversial moves, it is best to hold a discussion on the article talk page first and post a notice at Requested moves. This allows for a consensus among interested editors. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They changed the convention. Interesting.  Thanks for the heads up, and the fix.  By the way, I think the consensus method we just used (BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) is best.  It resolved the "controversy" much faster than the procedure you mentioned would have.  ;)  The Transhumanist  21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)