User talk:VegardNorman

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, VegardNorman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abgar

Re Agbar the black -- this subject is covered at Abgar V of Edessa. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Assyrian people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Syriacs. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Some points to note:

  1. You have been repeatedly reverting the edits of others (edit warring) on multiple articles recently yet there is vanishingly little text from you on the talk pages of said articles. Please bear in mind that failure to discuss your repeated reverts will probably result in you being blocked. See the above linked policy page on edit warring.
  2. If you want to move a page to a new title, please use the 'move' button, rather than cut and paste text from one page to another. A requirement of the WP:GFDL is that articles must be accompanied by their edit history; cut and paste moves violates this.
  3. You seem to be editing from both your account and IPs. Please could you stick to editing with one or the other, both as a courtesy to others and to avoid the impression of abusive sockpuppetry?

Thanks. – Steel 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism

Hello. It's great that you finally acknowledge the fact that you are into vandalism here.[1] You will soon get blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try again

What do you think of possibly moving Western Assyrians to Western Syriacs. I don't think you understand that a Syriac is a wide term that refers to ALL Syriac-speaking people of Mesopotamia, including ACOE and Chaldean Catholics. So that is why it doesn't make sense for your to have Syriac people that talkins about Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic alone. If you wan't a page that deals with Syriac Orthodox/Catholic members that do not want to be associated with Assyrians, then I think Western Syriacs would be a neutral solution. You need to understand the fact that a typical Chaldean like me don't call ourself Assyrian (even thou we identify with Assyrian culture), but rather SURAYA, a reference to Syriac. So for you to create this dubious page of Syriac People doesn't make sense, since Chaldeans are Syriacs and so are ACOE Assyrians. Chaldean (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the syriacs are not assyrians. We are descendants to the arameans, not the assyrians. we dont have the same history as the assyrians. VegardNorman (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just make statements like these. I have given you my hand in working together, and you seem to refuse to contribute positively. Chaldean (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But please, Syriacs are not assyrians. Why cant you accept that? VegardNorman (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, VegardNorman. You have new messages at PseudoOne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PseudoOne 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegard, that is fine if you think that, and I told you, you can use Western Syriacs as the page to make that point. But please try to remember that WIKI pages need to be neutral, and needs to talk about both side (for and against the Aramean connection), just like the way it is on the Assyrian people page. Chaldean (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which page (specifically) are you talking about? Chaldean (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you can do that with Western Syriacs is what I'm trying to say. Go ahead and work on the article. Chaldean (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then, if your going to create this new page, then where is Western Syriacs going to redirect too? Syriac/Aramaic or Assyrian people? Chaldean (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the US. Look I don't mind you doing the article. I think Syriac-Aramean people is a neutral title for this article. BUT PLEASE, do not make it a duplicate this website [[2]]. Garbage like that cannot be tolerated on wikipedia. Please use academic sources. The page Assyrian people has turned out to be great because it is backed with many sources, which are VERY neutral, and is a page that talks about all aspects. If you need help with anything else, let me know. Chaldean (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, its edits like this [[3]] that bother me about you. You cant just change things like that. Those numbers are SOURCED, yet you change them? Edits like that will refraim other wiki users to work with you. Chaldean (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The page still needs major improvents. Pshena. Chaldean (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vegard, what do you think of creating a board like this [[4]] where we can get people from all sides of Syriacs to discuss, negotiate about Syriac-Assyrian articles? I think with it, we can stop this back-and-forth revert edit wars that go around sometimes. Chaldean (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. But perhaps it would suffice to restart the Syriac Christianity WikiProject, where these issues can be discussed. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. you guys need a board comparable to Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Whichever side will be the first to recognize that the other has a certain relevance will have the advantage in the Wikipedia consensus system. As long as you just continue infighting Elias-style, you'll just cancel each other out and annoy uninvolved Wikipedians. I can see a "slash" solution for Assyrian people (Assyrian/Syriac people or similar), but the creation of WP:CFORKs over naming preferences will not be tolerated. dab (𒁳) 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Western Syriacs are not only Arameans its also WestAssyrians! Othuroye/Suryoye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.144.85 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your behaviour

you are not acting constructively. You are creating content forks and messing up disambiguation pages. You want to argue for a move to a more neutral title on Talk:Assyrian people, where I would conceivable give a certain amount of support to your position. Just creating havoc with article titles and disambiguation pages will not result in the effect you desire, and will likely just get you banned from editing. dab (𒁳) 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you again to stop edit warring. You are required to propose your changes on WP:TALK, seeking consensus first. If you continue in your present vein, you will not have any effect on Wikipedia content, and will be banned from editing. dab (𒁳) 11:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Syriacs are not only Arameans its also Assyrians!

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Syriac-Aramaic identity has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Syriac-Aramean people constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. The Helpful One (Review) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion

Shlomo, I urge you to discuss your edits first, before starting to move articles on your own. I agree that the current situation is far from satisfying, but we shouldn't fall into the same trap that other editors (including myself) have fallen into, since this is a highly sensitive issue. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VegardNorman, stop recreating the Syriac-Aramaean people content fork. See WP:CFORK. I am not opposed to moving Western Syriacs to Syriac-Aramaean people. This will be a move. The article you keep recreating is just a duplication of the article under another title. Don't do this. Listen: I tend to support your solution of making "Assyrians/Syriacs" the standard name used on Wikipedia. This would also mean we move Assyrian people to Assyrian/Syriac people. But you cannot just move things around unilaterally. You need to discuss this first, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Syriac). dab (𒁳) 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication? I wrote the whole article from scratch VegardNorman (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nevertheless, its scope is exactly the same. The very same group you discuss under "Syriac-Aramaean people" is already discussed under "Western Syriacs". I'll ask you again to stop creating content forks and stop moving things around without discussion. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont come with proofless crap. [5] = I wrote everything, My article is about Syriac-Aramean people. Western syriacs may refer to Syriac-arameans, assyrians and chaldeans. VegardNorman (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very well. Be advised that if you don't stop your edit-warring and assume a more cooperative attitude, you may find yourself blocked for disruption rather soon. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that if you don't stop your edit-warring and assume a more cooperative attitude.. Absolutly :).. can i now upload my article in Syriac-Aramaean people? VegardNorman (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google suggest Syriac-Aramean to be more common. But please, dont do anything before you informn everyone at Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board (in the talk page.) While your there, please sign your name under participitations. Chaldean (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That you want to create this article. Then we will have a our opinion on it, and if most of us agree on it, then you can go ahead with the article. This is how we deal with Assyrian-Syriac articles now. We first negotiate things before we want to do big things. That means you can't move a pages, like Assyrian in Lebanon, to Assyrians/Syriacs in Lebanon until you inform people in that board. This way, we will have less conflict. BTW, I think it was right of you moving that page, but I just used that as an example. Chaldean (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well state your case in the board and state why you think this article you want to create is important. Make your case in a detailed paragraph, that way if he does ignore you, then the rest of the users will ingore Dab, and will work with you. Do you see how much better things are when you talk about them, before you take actions? So please in the future, don't do something like moving the Assyrian genocide page without informing the rest of the community. Shlama Chaldean (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will support a move of Assyrian people to Syriac/Assyrian people. I will not accept your creation of content forks at random titles just because you failed to move the article to your preferred location. If you continue, I will see to it that you are blocked under the disruption clause. Which will be a pity, since I actually support your aim of moving the article to a more neutral title. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Did we not agree that we would first discuss something before moving it? Why did you move the list of Assyrian villages page, as well as the Assyrian diaspora? And why are you linking Assyriansl like Kennedy Bakircioglü and Andreas Haddad to the Aramean-Syriac page? These people have no connection to the Aramean identity what so ever. I thought we agreed that only those who clearly identify themselves as Aramean, would so be labeled as such. Lets make this clear once again; only those who consider themselves as Aramean should be labeled as Syriac-Aramean people. You cant force an identity on others.Chaldean (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegard why have you not answered me? Chaldean (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You edits seem to all be one goal; removing any reference to Assyrian. Rather taking dramatic actions like this, please discuss them in the talk page first before removing things. Like the way I did in Talk:Syriac Christianity. Chaldean (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did i remve? VegardNorman (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't think you understand the meaning and use of templates. They are simply a way of connecting relative articles together. Just because Arameans is included in the "history of the Assyrian" template, does not meann that Arameans are/were Assyrians. But since Arameans where part of the Assyrian's history for thousands of years, it is connected with the other similar articles. I am here to help you in the Syriac people page, but if your going to be selfish in removing things without making a legit case in the talk page first, then you will continue to find yourself of getting blocked. You don't want to have the same faith as Elias bro. Chaldean (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you were supposed to help me with the article Syriac people. But i havent seen anything from your side. VegardNorman (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because if your going around and removing things without discussing or even asking. I have been active in the talk page of that page specifically, so I don't know what you are talking about. Chaldean (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Evidently, warnings left by non-admins were not sufficient, so let me try mine: If you move another page without consensus, I will block you from editing. Page moves - especially controversial ones - require discussion. If you want to move a page, file a request here and discuss it properly. This is your last warning. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wich page did i move? Please precise yourself VegardNorman (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've tried to move several, as anyone can see from your contributions. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Syriac-Aramean people has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 11:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegard, could you please join us on the dicussion we are having down this page? [[6]]. Thanks. Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rampage

I see that your on a anti-Assyrian rampage and deleting anything you don't like that is Assyrian related. Let it be known that if your going to continue to remove sourced information, you will be gone like Elias. I can easily push for Syriac people to be redirected to Assyrian people, so don't push it. Chaldean (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like playing this game? Because I can go on forever. Chaldean (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im tired of all this Assyrianist articles. The group is called and known as Syriacs. Not "assyrians". No one in Tur Abdin call him/her self for "assyrian". VegardNorman (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriacs

Shlomo, I've been bothering dab to move the article to West Syriacs, which is for the moment the best choice, I think. Not perfect, but at least better than Syriacs (Jacobites). Syriacs would in my opinion not be appropriate, since that name (being an English rendering of Sur(y)āye) is also applied to Assyrian Church of the East members and Chaldaean Catholics.

Instead of moving articles yourself, perhaps you could join in the discussion. I have been struggling against the Assyrianisation of everything Syriac for quite some time now, and I think we should have the following articles:

The Chaldaeans - being all members of the Chaldaean Catholic Church - can be dealt with in the CCC article, just like the Maronites.

In other articles, I believe the term Syriacs should be used, perhaps like this: Syriacs (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans).

We need to co-operate here, the debate is heated enough. By pushing our cause, we don't get very far. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not moved any article. West syriacs is much better than Syriacs (Jacobites), but still not good. I agree with your proposals, but the title Aramaeans may also refer to the ancient arameans. Isnt it better with Aramaeans (Modern) and Aramaeans (Ancient)?VegardNorman (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No because not all of Syriac Orthodox subsribe to the Aramean identity. Syriac-Aramean people is the best choice. So that its either for people whom call themsleves Syriac only or Aramean as well. Chaldean (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its difficult to get anything done with Dab is in control of things. Chaldean (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegard, as I have told you previously, I am here to work with you in a friendly manner, but please don't push it with your unhelpful edits. As dab asked me once, you need to ask yourself are you here to create encyclopedic articles or just go on a nationalist campaign on Wikipeida. Be bold in your edits, but also be realistic and truthful. What excuse do you have for edits like this? Chaldean (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist campaign? Im just correcting everything here. You and Elias main mission is to assyrianate everyone and everything. For example: Efraim the Syrian was ASsyrian? Biggest joke ever. And ive got a good excuse for the edit [7]. I dont know how to make this symbol/sign or what its called --> | so i copied it from the article in zelge fans. Then i removed all text and started to write about Gefe Fans. Then i forgot that i was writing in article Zelge Fans, instead of Gefe Fans. But i discovered my mistake and turned back to the old version as you can see here. I hope you understand. VegardNorman (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vegard, in regards to Efraim the Syrian; buttom line he was a Suraya, ie Syrian. Despite this, the Assyrians worship him in their churches and consider him as one of them. This is just like how the Syrian Orthodox Church worship [[8]] Senharib II's son Mor Behnam, and consider him as one of them, even thou he clearly was identified as an Assyrian, and the prince of Asoor. Buttom line, we are both the same people, but I don't mind having different articles on Syriac People, Chaldean people, etc, but you can't deny the fact we are one people. Chaldean (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of picking on this article, go fix the articel about assyrian people. Half of the sources are not realible. VegardNorman (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegard, thats not how it works. Instead go to WP:RM and follow the steps. If your having dificulty, let me know. Chaldean (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how that website works. The 4 million is from the Syriac Orthodox Church's website itself, while the other is from a different source. In another words, they are not together, the Church's offical site is using universal numbers, as in all of its members including its off-shout of Indians. Anyways, think about it for a second; even if there were 4 million Syriac (middle eastern) people - where are they? According to Syrian sources, there can be then 1 million, since the other millino is Christian Arabs (Greek Church.) So where are the other 3 million? Chaldean (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are in Syria, lebanon, israel, europe, usa. Only in sweden there are 100,000 VegardNorman (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When will you realize that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not a website to run your properganda? How do you expect people to believe you by just saying it without citing reliable sources? I still can't believe you used Maglomatis as one of your sources. They guy has pubically called out to take Arabs into a concentration camp. I don't think Wikipedia would be happy to see if he is used as a reference. Chaldean (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Only in sweden there are 100,000" - Ok, so thats 1.1 million with Sweden and Syria. Where are the rest of the 2.9 million? Chaldean (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please read the infobox. Stop hacking at me, im trying my best to find sources and to build the article. I have just started to read books about modern syriacs and ancient arameans. and in Syria there are 1,500,000 + 100 in sweden = 1.6. there is an estimation with 3.5 - 4 mill. you can remove the 4 , and just let it be 3,5 if that makes you happy. VegardNorman (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about making me happy, its about facts. If you can't bring facts to the table, then you are obligated to scrutiny. Where does it say 1.5 million in Syria? Why do you continue using Maglomatis? Did I not explain how he is not considered reliable to you? Do you want me to get Dab back in this so that he can totally blow this up? Chaldean (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No i work much better with not having him around. Chaldean could you please be patience. i will add sources from history books, geograpcihal books etc. Please just let me work on the article. VegardNorman (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how Wikipedia works. Its not about me being patent or not. Once you have your facts together, then come and add to the article. Chaldean (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You use Maglomatis one more time, then I'm bring dab in. This is rediculus. Can you not see how wrong you are in using him? Chaldean (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" I have just started to read books about modern syriacs and ancient arameans. " - that is interesting, why don't your read a quick history lesson on our people written by a Syriac Orthodox himself from Harput name Eprim Yeldiz [[9]]. Chaldean (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be requested Syriac people page to be redirected to Assyrian people now. Chaldean (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understoud the situation. Just because I gave you the ok to create the Syriac people page, doesn't mean you can create "Syriac culture" or History of the Syriac people. This is not a separete group from the whole group. So you can go on and create all these mirror pages of the original Assyrian pages. I know you have made the decision that "they are two different people" but that is not what academics say. Chaldean (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As promised...

You have been blocked for persistent page moves without discussion.[10] You may resume constructive editing after the block expires, but continued disruption will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Aramaic Democratic Organization

A tag has been placed on Aramaic Democratic Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Syriacs-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin.

Furthermore, I reverted the page edit in question because he blanked the page as opposed to creating a redirect or editing the page in a 'helpful' way. I have literally no interest in the subject matter whatsoever - I was simply reverting an 'incorrect' edit. HalfShadow (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at History of the Syriac people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Chaldean (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac people

I don't know whats going on but the move war is unpleasant. Can we please end the move war. I do not care one bit what the page is named. -- Cat chi? 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

Please read this policy a good few times. Then think about abiding by it. Your recent editing has been highly disruptive and you are well on the way to a lengthy block for general time-wasting. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey there, who is unmoving all those pages you moved to neutral names?--Yohanun (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bahro Suryoyo

I have nominated Bahro Suryoyo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahro Suryoyo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created is about to be deleted: Tools which can help you

The article you created, Bahro_Suryoyo is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

  1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
  2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
  3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
    Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
    Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
  4. You can merge the article into a larger article.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of World Council of Arameans (Syriacs)

Notice

The article World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any in-depth, intellectually independent coverage of this organization as required by WP:NORG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) 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/World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) 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.

(t · c) buidhe 13:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]