Great work on Syriac Christian topics. However, I have to disagree with you on some of the redirects you made, namely Mor Behnam. I do believe that the eastern spelling is more common, it is also a good practice to discuss non-technical moves on talk pages. Cheers.--Kathovo talk 22:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you and I completely understand. So far I've only been looking at sites that use Western Syriac spelling so I can see where you're coming from. And on the redirects, I refrained from bothering with discussing it because I very much doubted I would get a reply. Mugsalot (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding of Wikipedia policies that inline references are preferable to a general listing of sources consulted, so I changed the ref to an inline citation. I did notice that the names didn't match, but since I am not an expert in Orthodox and Syriac Christianity I assumed you were right, thanks for the correction, peace to you Wayne Jayes (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah well at least one of us was paying attention; on the inline references I normally use those for larger articles that have separate pieces of information but considering almost all of the pages on patriarchs were from the same source I felt it was okay just to leave it as a list. Mugsalot (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing members of the church from the church category? Do you intend to create a new membership category for them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The church category isn't for members of the church as there already is 4 other categories for the patriarchs and I was simply clearing up the category. I plan to fill out those pages with additional content when I get around to it and add them to other Syriac categories but at the moment I'm just sorting out the main church category. Mugsalot (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than leaving them orphans, isn't it best to first create the new categories and then transfer them? This method looks cart-before-the-horse to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase what I said earlier. I don't plan on moving those pages into any new categories, they're perfectly accessible from the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs category.Mugsalot (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mugsalot, Thank you for your contribution to the above article. A baronial peerage is (and always was) a strictly controlled legal status, bestowed by writ of summons. The so-called "Lordship of Bowland" has never been a peerage and its creation prior to 1707 is irrelevant to its status in this respect. (Many other titles created prior to 1707 are not peerages either.) I have accordingly deleted the reference to the category of Baronies in the Peerage of England; I hope that's OK. With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I was under the impression that it was in the Peerage of England but if you say otherwise I'll leave it. Mugsalot (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the cat is fitting for a city whose Assyrian population is 0.--Kathovo talk 13:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as in the case of Assur itself, I think that Tikrit, as a historically Assyrian settlement, is appropriately placed in the cat. Mugsalot (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an appropriate way of using such cats, we similarly don't see Paris or London being labelled Celtic or Roman settlements despite being so for many centuries.--Kathovo talk 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so but other modern cities such as Mainz and Cologne are labelled as Roman settlements, and the article for Londinium, rather than the modern city, is also labelled as a Roman settlement. Mugsalot (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Christianity

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Christianity for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 20:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia maintains that Assyrian people is to cover all those who identify as Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac or Syrian." But before the state of Israel allowed/created/suggested the opportunity for registration as ethnic Aramean the Assyrian people's page was that way Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac or Syrian, without the name Aramean. BUT after October 2014 the situation changed and now we have extreme attempts for adding Arameans. All this is part of a systematic insistence that all people who are Christian within the Mideast to be classified under the umbrella term Assyrian as part of the Assyrian nationalism, that goes beyond the original area of the Assyrians (northern Iraq, southeastern Turkey, northwestern Iran, northeastern Syria). I am waiting when Armenians and Copts will be added as part of the Assyrian people ;) MaronitePride (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really read my reply? MaronitePride (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. I wrote this before having received the message. Mugsalot (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, if we accept the claim self-identity of the present day Assyrians (from the areas mentioned above) that they descent and have direct connection to the ancient Assyrians (based mainly on the geography of ancient Assyria), why we have problems with the claim of the present day self-identity of the Arameans that they descent and have direct connection to the ancient Arameans (based mainly on the geography of ancient Aramea, the Aram region in northwestern, central and southern Syria)? Is that a double standard ? MaronitePride (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, however, if I was to leave a message on your talk page I would much rather we discuss it there so to avoid having to swap between talk pages. I also appreciate a sense of humour in dealing with a topic that is normally very fiercely debated on Wikipedia. I personally do not know a great deal on this issue and only base my knowledge on what is provided here on Wikipedia. However, having looked at several articles I can see my confusion in joining Assyrians and Arameans as one race in that both were known as Syrians to Greeks, and the term Syrian was only originally applied to actual Assyrians, of the area you have previously mentioned. Have you read what has been proposed on the Assyrian people talk page? I think that may be an appropriate solution to apply to all modern people. Mugsalot (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Is it possible to point the exact discussion to read it? (But when reading we have to think if it is suggested from the point of view of the Assyrian nationalism or not). If you ask me the only right umbrella term could be Syriac (Syriac people) since corresponds to all people affiliated with Syriac Christianity (Syriac Christians). MaronitePride (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Assyrian people#Edit Request on 25 June 2015 is the proposal. However, if Syriac People is to be used it would cover those currently covered by the Assyrian People article rather than Syriac Christians as that would include Indians also. If Syriac is not used for all peoples previously mentioned then perhaps dividing between Arameans to the West of the Euphrates and Assyrians in the East would be appropriate. Mugsalot (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"dividing between Arameans to the West of the Euphrates and Assyrians in the East would be appropriate" - Exactly, that's the main reason why I insisted on the changes. This will solve all the problems explained above (like double standard favoring one side - Assyrian nationalism). Thanks for giving me the link to the discussion. But nevertheless the best choice is what you suggested above dividing the two groups. MaronitePride (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, however, that we may have difficulties in dividing between what can be considered Aramea and and Assyria. In the meantime, I feel it would be best we gain a consensus on the issue before we enact any further changes. Mugsalot (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. We have to wait to see when this separation/consensus will take place for more clarity beyond articles that do not have explicitly stated Aramean within their titles. You could also comment on the issue that you suggested me to read Talk: Assyrian people#Edit Request on 25 June 2015 MaronitePride (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I am George G. Edwards, filmmaker/writer/director, in Hollywood, California. I am the nephew of MGM and son of her brother, Edward George. Who are you? Why do you continue changing her name? YOU are NOT her family, nor in charge of her page any longer. My family, DIRECT family of Margret's will take over from here. If you have ANY problem with this, call me @310-853-0928, if not, do NOT touch her page. We are her family, WE will dictate what NAME we call her - NOT YOU!

If you do NOT respect OUR WISHES (Margret George's family) simply put: WE WILL CREATE THE REAL WIKIPEDIA ABOUT HER.

I thank you, kindly, for your "help". However, I don't need it and YOU have NO idea who she REALLY is - cease & desist from editing MY work or I will TOUCH your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George G. Edwards (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own the article of Margaret George Shello per WP:OWN, nor can you prevent me from editing on said article per WP:DSAN and you cannot dictate her name either, her name on Wikipedia is dictated by WP:COMMONNAME. Who you claim to be is irrelevant and unless you provide references to your edits, I will continue to revert them Mugsalot (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mugsalot. I would like you to comment on Talk:Hadrut (town) when you have time. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your are continuously reverting sourced content to protect biased and unhistorical manipulations. But Ignatius Jacob III or Barsoum Patriarchs are no match for historians like Kiraz and Sebastian Brock. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, Explain what was the copy righted content. You have your partisan desires to protect. That is why you are constantly removing sourced content. I have not copy pasted anything from any site. You really believe that you can do all sorts of vandalism in favour of your Church once I get blocked, right? Do not behave like this, tomorrow someone else who understands your manipulation will remove your partisan edit. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I like your interests here. I have a question: I see, that you added more names for the Syriac people. And this is right. But the article still is "Assyrian people". The terms should be equivalent. The general name for all these groups is "Syriac people" or "Suryoyo" (West Aramaic) / "Suryaya" (East Aramaic). The lemma is one-sided at the moment. It should be changed - the term Assyrian is absolutely not a general name for all Suryoye (plural form). The conflict about this name shows that quite clearly. Be blessed! --E.Mailbox (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for contacting me on this topic. May I ask what scholarly work you base this on? Most books I have found and read regarding this topic have suggested that Assyrian is the term used for those who identify as Syriac, and I have reflected that in my recent edits to the Assyrian people article. Mugsalot (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. At first, you see, that there are many discussions and conflicts between the names: if "Assyrian" would be a general name for all the Syriac people, there wouldn't be a controversial. Look at "Term for Syriac Christians" for example or at the page "Assyrian people" itself - there is controversial. Furthermore, there are 3 different flags (Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean). My worry is, that the page is full of ideology. The literature shows, that there are mainly pro Assyrian secondary books. And sure, they claim that "Assyrian" is used by all and is the only right one. But that's wrong. It is always better to read primary sources. Look, Canadians can not force US-Americans to call themselves Canadian. Do you know, what I mean? The Assyrian empire at that time conquered territories of the Arameans, Chaldeans and Hebrews. Are these peoples now Assyrians? Of course not. This point of view is ignorant. Look at Israel, for example: they don't call themselves Assyrians. The Assyrians were their enemies. Another point is, that the Syriac Orthodox Church is the one of these churches (Syriac, Assyrian and Chaldean) with the most Christians in it (maybe 6 millions according to Wikipedia) [1]. And the church's name is Syriac, not Assyrian. "Suryoyo" is the Aramaic name for Syriac. And Syriac means Aramean. Maybe you know the story of Naaman, the Syriac. It's in the Old Testament. There he is called an Aramean. In the New Testament he is called a Syriac [2]. It's a synonym. The Syriac Orthodox Church also says, that Syriacs are the descendants of the Arameans (http://sayfosyriacgenocide.org/sayfo-book-english/). The Syriac Church Fathers taught this. Some Assyrians would be angry now, I guess. I'm sure, if the lemma get changed into "Syriac people", they would not accept it. But this is intolerant. "Assyrian" means at first a member of one of the Assyrian churches (Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East). It's a problem that there is only one article, which includes all names. The article is not objective like it is now. The German Wikipedia has two (one for the Arameans and one for the Assyrians), although it's the same people. Now it was long. :) Excuse me, but it wouldn't be right not to mention that all. --E.Mailbox (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you say yourself, those who claim to be Aramean and those who claim to be Assyrian are the same people, and this opinion can also be found in many of the books I have sourced. However, Assyrian is the term used most frequently for "Arameans", "Syriacs", and "Chaldeans". If you would like what you are saying to be reflected on Wikipedia then you will have to provide sources that support your argument, otherwise you will be left without a leg to stand on and your edits will be reverted. I would very much appreciate it if you provided a source that argues Syriac and Aramean are synonymous. Mugsalot (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added categories by century for Oriental Orthodoxy for the 19th, 20th & 21st centuries (and back to the 15th century), eg Category:20th-century Oriental Orthodoxy. The subcategoy for bishops by century eg Category:20th-century Oriental Orthodox bishops now have mainly bishops from Egypt, Coptic Church and India, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. There are few in the century categories for clergy and Christians eg Category:20th-century Oriental Orthodox clergy and Category:20th-century Oriental Orthodox Christians apart from "bishops" as a subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found a few useful sources about Suryanis/Arameans in Syria. It seems to me that you are very knowledgeable in the topic and I want to ask you to look at them. (I added them under Assyrians in Syria but also think that it has to be added to the article Arameans in Syria (possibly I think that article has to be renamed to Suryanis in Syria instead of Arameans in Syria). Thanks in advance. Sloganlingo (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approaching me and thank you for informing of "Minority Rights in the Middle East" by Joshua Castellino, it is a very interesting and helpful source. The article, Assyrians in Syria, has a lot of room for improvement but what you have added is very useful. I made the article Arameans in Syria a redirect of Arameans as Syria is the ancestral homeland of the ancient Arameans so it seemed pointless to make a separate article for them. If you would like to read more regarding the subject I have collected various quotes in my sandbox that you are more than welcome to use. Mugsalot (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I will check them. Do you think that the article Arameans in Syria has to be renamed to Suryanis in Syria in order to be more specific instead of just redirect to Arameans? Or just to make it Assyrians/Suryanis in Syria to include the two groups.Sloganlingo (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Suryani" is used to refer to Syriac Orthodox Christians, Assyrians and Arameans from what I've seen so there it would be confusing to use the term. I don't think renaming Assyrians in Syria to Assyrians/Suryanis in Syria is necessary as those who identify as Suryani or Aramean are part of the Assyrian ethnic group anyway. Mugsalot (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then leave as it is right now. Sloganlingo (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maphrians and Metropolitans of the East is already in Category:Oriental Orthodox Church templates. Since Category:Oriental Orthodox Church templates is a sub-cat of Category:Christianity navigational boxes, via Category:Eastern Christianity templates, it doesn't need to be in Category:Christianity navigational boxes directly.

If templates and other pages were put directly into all the categories that they seem to fit into, then categories like Category:Christianity navigational boxes would have many thousands of templates directly in them, and be useless to find anything in. (Only 200 items can be viewed at one time.) Categories like Category:Templates might have millions of templates directly in them and the whole category system would be useless or nearly useless. tahc ^chat 08:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted some fraud. Sorry, some of your edits got caught up in the revert. — kwami (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami:, can you please explain what "fraud" you are referring to and why you could not simply have removed it manually. Mugsalot (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't get the ping.

Fraud: changing referenced data (population figures) in violation of the references. (By an editor who's been doing this to multiple articles and arguing it's "fraud" to follow sources.) Perhaps it was merely incompetence, but either way it needed to be reverted.

Because it's a pain in the ass. Other people should be watching articles that have a contested history like this, and reverting unref'd changes. Who's policing this thing? It shouldn't fall to me when I'm only here because I happened to follow a disruptive editor. That's no guarantee of quality. If these edits slipped past all the watchers of the article, I'm sure that other garbage has too. But I self-reverted and then restored just the info box.

— kwami (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article, amongst others related, is a cesspit of unreferenced edits. I'm not going to provide an excuse where there isn't one and I'll admit I should have checked the fraudulent edits. However, removing the work that had been done to improve the quality of the article did not help a great deal either. In future, edits will receive far greater scrutiny to avoid these situations and thank you for helping to prevent fraudulent edits from remaining in place. Mugsalot (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mugsalot, I just saw that you reverted my last edit to the Assyrian people article. What was the "removal of sourced content"? The source use both the terms "ethnoreligious group" and "ethnic group", why are you suggesting the first to be used? In my opinion it is not up to date labeling the Assyrians as an ethnoreligious group, since there are many agnostics and atheists among the Assyrians, I know quite a few. Same goes for other sources 1. Shmayo (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since I edit a lot in the Middle Ages, could you spell this[3] out for me? While I'm sure this comes from some bureaucratic decision somewhere — which isn't necessarily a bad thing! — I'm not sure which overarching category Chrysostom is currently listed in. For example, it can't be Category:Church Fathers, because while Origen is in that category, he died a heretic and as such isn't, technically, a saint. FWIW, I view categories as primarily a research tool, so I'm never one to blanch at over categorization as a general rule. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in response to your question as to which overarching category Chrysostom should be located in, I am not entirely sure. As it states on Category:Christian saints by denomination, "saints should not be categorized in any of the denominations subcategories if they are recognized as a saint by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches", which is why I reverted your edit. Moreover, as Chrysostom is not revered by all Christian churches it would not be appropriate to have him categorised simply as a Christian saint. If you have any thoughts on which category may be better suited to Chrysostom I am more than happy to discuss it. Mugsalot (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry mate, but many of those names you added are simply inaccurate/less popular names. Sakastan was never called Drangiana under the Sasanians, that's a completely different province which was under the Achaemenids. Babylonia wasn't used as a name either. And Persia isn't really a popular choice as a Sasanian province. The Cambridge History of Iran (and many other sources) for example don't use these kind of names either. Many of these names are the names of Achaemenid satrapies, not Sasanian provinces. It's also confusing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the provinces were not referred to by their English translations under the Sasanians or Achaemenids and I did not assert that, mate. The edit was intentioned to standardise the names according to their translations. Many of the names, such as Drangiana, Parthia, Persia, and Babylonia, accurately reflect the provinces and reflect such provinces' continued existence since their initial formation under the Achaemenids. The names used prior to my edit were inconsistent and included transliterations and translations alike. However, admittedly, this may appear confusing and as a result I propose the provinces are referred to solely by the transliterations, eg. Sogd and Marw, Sogdia and Margiana, respectively. It may also be of benefit to add the kusts the provinces are believed to have belonged to.

On a separate note, regarding Aria (satrapy), I feel it is unnecessary for there to be an article purely for the region's tenure as a Sasanian province. The region existed as a province under the Achaemenids, Seleucids and Sasanians as the same entity with merely different rulers. It would be more suitable for the history to be recorded in a single article. Mugsalot (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- It may be the English transliteration, but at the same time it's very confusing and inaccurate. Most sources (especially the newer ones) don't tend to spell the names like that (some of the names were never used to refer to the Sasanian provinces). Maybe it would in a book made in 1898 (an example of course), where people didn't have much information as they do now, but not the sources there are nowadays.

- Well the kusts were first created under Khosrow I, so I think we should do it in a way so people don't think these kusts existed the whole Sasanian period.

- Actually I think it's good to have several articles for that (the more detail the better/easier, and also less confusing, since the provinces had different names under the several dynasties), and I believe there is still much information to write on the Herav article, but it's good for now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably nothing stands in the way of adding more detail to the Aria (satrapy) article similarly to what I have done with Margiana. In the case of Drangiana, for example, I agree that it would be more suitable to have a separate article to cover the period when it became known as Sakastan, however, for Aria it would be silly to suggest there needs to be an entirely new article when the Old Persian Haraiva and Middle Persian Harev can be simply introduced in the intro without any confusion whatsoever. Mugsalot (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No because sources tend to use the word 'Aria' for the Achaemenid and Parthian province, while under the Sasanians they call it 'Harev'. Again, a good example is the Cambridge History of Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which other sources refer to Aria as Harev? In the 3 sources that you referred to in the Harev article from Encyclopædia Iranica: "KAWĀD I i. Reign", "ʿARAB ii. Arab conquest of Iran", and "HERAT ii. HISTORY, PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD", the word Harev is only mentioned once and in the article "HERAT ii. HISTORY, PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" Aria is used to describe the province during the Sasanian period . In Touraj Daryaee's Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, for example, Harev is not mentioned at all, whereas Aria is used in its place. Furthermore, Parvaneh Pourshariati's Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire maintains the use of Aria when referring to the province and makes no mention of Harev. Moreover, Richard Frye's History of Ancient Iran also fails to use the word Harev. Mugsalot (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Touraj Daryaee's book he's simply quoting something from the book of the Roman Ammianus Marcellinus, hence why it is written as 'Sogdiani' instead of 'Sogdia' and so on. And I can't find anything about Aria in Pourshariati's book. Anyway, my point is that Harev is used in several (especially newer) sources, and that Harev article is good enough to be where it is - you said yourself there was not enough content to warrant two separate articles some days ago, but now there is, and the article could be even more expanded than that, but it's good enough at the moment. It would be confusing to have one article for several provinces under different dynasties in different periods. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pourshariati uses Aria on his map of the Sasanian Empire in the 4th century AD on p. 472 [4]; funnily enough he also uses "Drangiana" on his map. I am aware that you have already asserted that several sources use Harev, which was why I asked you which sources those actually are but you have failed to provide me with this evidence. I, on the other hand, have succeeded in providing sources contrary to what you have claimed.

I do not think your meagre addition to the article has added much to it whatsoever, and it still lacks enough content to be a separate article. There is no need to chop up an already minute article into even smaller articles. No, it wouldn't be confusing. Aria existed as a distinguishable region throughout the entirety of Antiquity that changed in name and ruler alone, keeping Aria as a single article would reflect this. Mugsalot (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the few sources you listed which used the word 'Harev', and the Cambridge History of Iran is just as good (if not better) than your two sources. Again there is much information on the Harev article, hence it shouldn't be all in one article. Besides the map Pourshariati used is some random map from a non-academic website (http://www.iranchamber.com/), I can post one as well, in fact, this one seems even more reliable [5]. Anyway these are small details, my point is that the Harev article now has enough information, which there is no denying to, since it's quite clear. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why you have failed to be civil for the entirety of this conversation, and frankly such a topic is not worth getting riled as you have. If you wish to return to this conversation when you are in a better frame of mind I am more than happy to wait until you are prepared to be civil.

I find it a tad ridiculous that you have now reversed your argument that you stated earlier that the two articles should not be merged on the merit that sources refer to Aria as Harev during the Sasanian period and now it is a "small detail" as you have have been proven incorrect. It's clear from Encyclopædia Iranica, Frye, Daryaee, and Pourshariati that Harev is not commonly used. If you would look closely at the map used by Pourshariati, it is different to this map [6], albeit similar. Mugsalot (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to be uncivil - not sure how I am being uncivil, but if you felt so then I'm sorry.

I didn't reverse anything, I answered all your arguments, but also stated at the same time that you originally said that the article didn't have enough information, which is does now and is what started this discussion. By the way, Daryaee, Iranica, and Pourshariati don't count at all (i've just answered about all these, but you seem to have ignored that, btw those maps are exactly the same, just a different choice of color), and you're saying it like I didn't show a source at all. Again, I'm not trying to be uncivil. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that was not your intention then there is no need to apologise. The size of the article is not an issue.

Earlier you stated that your "point is that Harev is used in several (especially newer) sources". Frye, Daryaee, and Pourshariati are examples of scholars who have not used the term Harev in reference to Aria in the Sasanian period. The articles, "KAWĀD I i. Reign" and "ʿARAB ii. Arab conquest of Iran" do not use the term Harev also. The article "HERAT ii. HISTORY, PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" uses the term Aria to refer to the Herat region. Yes, Daryaee is referring to a historical source and therefore that use of the term Aria is not sufficient evidence. However, whereas I have provided 5 sources that suggest the term Herav is not used, you have provided 1 source that suggest otherwise and therefore one can conclude that Herav is not appropriate for an entire article. I do not see why Daryaee, Iranica, and Pourshariati don't count at all. Mugsalot (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Iranica, take note that they use "Herat" when we come to the Sasanian period, not Aria. Again, Daryaee is simply quiting something from a Roman book, hence the word "Sogdiani" and so on. Pourshariati uses Herat in her book (search Her¯at if you have the pdf file), not Aria. Now having answered your arguments, I will come with a little fact; "here is not enough content to warrant two separate articles." That was what you said when you merged the article, but now it has enough content to be a article of its own, so I don't see what the issue is? The usage of the term "Aria" is favored in sources about the Achaemenids and Parthians, while Harev/Herat (sometimes "Harat" is also used) is favored in sources about the Sasanians. EDIT: Just expanded the article even more, now there's certainly no denying that the article doesn't have enough information (btw take note that the Sasanians aren't mentioned here either [7]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to see if someone wants to take a picture of the main entrance of the school. I'll check Geograph... WhisperToMe (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, may I ask why you believe I am close enough to this school to take a photo of its main entrance? It is relatively close to me but it is largely inconvenient to go visit I'm afraid so I won't be able to take a photo of the entrance. Mugsalot (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked because you discussed the school's architecture at Talk:Teikyo School United Kingdom - Anyway if you know any other Wikipedians in Buckinghamshire who are interested in taking the photo please let me know :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I had forgotten about that, thank you for reminding me. Good luck on getting a photo. Mugsalot (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mugsalot

You returned my edit on the page of Jasar Takak? What was wrong with the search? He literally said in a Dutch interview Im an Aramean and Syriac Orthodox with parents from Turkey This is what he said in the interview! :Mijn voorouders zijn Aramees met een Syrisch-orthodox geloof. Mijn volk vindt zijn oorsprong in Turkije, maar wij zijn een eigen bevolkingsgroep zonder staat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielOromoy (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your edit as you did not provide a source for that quote. A source is necessary for your edit to not be reverted. Mugsalot (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mugsalot!

The Arameans and Syriacs are the same folk with the same identity! The Arameans called themself Syriacs after they converted to christianity. Nowadays you can see people call themself Arameans and other call themself Syriacs! But they are known as ONE nation. Like Josephus Flavius said: Aram had the Arameans, who were called Syrians by the Greeks. So it's a tautology!, they also use the same flag.

Can I please change the page back?

Thanks

Gabriël — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielOromoy (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for talking to me about this issue on my talk page, it's refreshing to discuss Wikipedia edits without any hostility or animosity. In regards to that quote, in future, I think you'll be more persuasive if you used Minahan's book [8] to back up your argument, encyclopaedias are more convincing than primary sources. I think it would be best to separate the identities to show that Syriac was the term used after the spread of Christianity, but simultaneously show that, in some cases, those who previously identified as Syriac now identify as Aramean. Mugsalot (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. I personally think it's better to see the Syriacs and Arameans as 1, because they represent them as one as well!

The biggest Aramean organisation is called --> The World Council of Arameans (Syriacs)

A lot of organisations also include the Syriac name and that is because it are 2 words with the same meaning, sorry for saying but u seem very Pro-Assyrian to me!

Isn't it an option to make an own Wikipedia page about the Arameans/Syriacs?

That's because the Assyrian page is mainly about the Assyrian people, culture and history!

And that isn't the same like the Syro-Aramean identity and culture, for example the Assyrians celebrate Akitu the Syro-Arameans do not, they also have other traditional clothes and alot more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielOromoy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw many pages for example the page of Shemun Hanne Haydo, where u are changing everything from Syriac or Aramaic to Assyrian. Stop with doing that please! GabrielOromoy (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine I look quite pro-Assyrian when I provide sources for my edits. The ancient Arameans have their own article and you can edit that to note that there is a subgroup of the modern Assyrian people that consider themselves Aramean. You are going to have to provide scholarly sources to support your edits or none of what of you think is right is going to stay on Wikipedia. Mugsalot (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's being whimsical here, ironically, adding content without the consensus & approval from fellow Wikipedians, because a European "scholar" justified it. Do you realize that you need to talk with other Wikipedians too before making hastily, stubborn edits? Do you even know what sources are? Syriac and Chaldean are sourced, and they are up there. I had the decency to compromise with you as I kept YOUR sources on Assyrians having the Aramean name on the self-designation section of the Assyrian people article. FYI, we have a page for Terms for Syriac Christians. The terms Syriacs and Chaldo-Assyrians are the more popular and commonly used terms for us. After all, most Assyrians go by these titles. These "scholars" don't know that about us. Plus, we're not animals. We have a brain and we can name ourselves. Not to mention, Western Assyrians are those who tend to call themselves Aramean. So please, use that term more often in that article.

Oh, and also stop with "aka Chaldeans". Bear in mind that NOT all Assyrians have a Chaldean identity. As such, it's downright ridiculous to say that Assyrians are "also known as Chaldeans". That's like stating "reptiles are also known as lizards". Just the same way not all reptiles are lizards, NOT all Assyrians are Chaldean. Yes, an unorthodox analogy here, but it gets to the point. Anyway, I just hope that instead of having an edit war, you would come to have an understanding to this. We need to have a decent resolution. Otherwise, if this continues, I may have to report it to the Wiki mods for both of our sake's. Thank you. Meganesia (talk) 1:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly unique amongst Assyrian editors on Wikipedia in that you made it absolutely clear that your ethnicity gives you a certain superiority over other editors and your word, as an Assyrian, is more reliable than scholarly sources.^[1] I will make it absolutely clear. You are not reliable and people do not care what you think unless you are backed up by scholars. The 5 sources I provided to support the statement that Assyrians are also known as Chaldeans, do not mention the term Chaldo-Assyrian and as such I won't use it in the intro. As I also provided several scholarly sources to demonstrate that those who identify as Arameans are Assyrians, I will add back to the intro that Assyrians are also known as Arameans.

Unfortunately, however, this dispute does partially rest on a misunderstanding. The intro, "Assyrian people, also known as etc." is to show that Assyrians are known by several terms and is not intended to suggest that all Assyrians identify as something other than Assyrian. No single source I have provided on that article suggests that all Assyrians have a Chaldean, Syriac or Aramean identity, and to be honest, I did not think that the wording suggested that.

If you dislike Assyrians so much, as implied by your reply and title "egotistical Assyrian" (really mature), then why bother on their article? Go edit articles that are suited to your interests. Perhaps those of your ethnicity. Yes, I am reliable. People DO care what I think. They're called Assyrians (ring a bell?). Not to mention, another editor also removed your additions and thanked my edits. Two people already disagreed with your edits. I think you already know this by now. I'm sorry, but your scholars are a second hand source. They're foreigners and have no knowledge of our identity. Sorry if that sounds "egotistical", but it's the truth and fact - People know their ethnicity better than others do. Meet some Assyrians and you'll comprehend what I'm on about. Oh, and please, spare me your ad hominems in your next reply. For your sake, I reedited the title of this section, which seemed like a personal attack. For someone who wants a calmness and constructiveness, you sure didn't seem it at first. Meganesia 10:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reply demonstrated I dislike editors who persistently work against Wikipedia, not Assyrians. You have now repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". I am under the impression you are not the author of reliable, published sources and if you are you haven't referenced to them.

You may be considered a primary source as an ethnic Assyrian, but you fail to understand that Wikipedia "should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" per WP:WPNOTRS. I have even provided a source from an ethnic Assyrian, Nicholas Aljeloo, who, funnily enough, shares the same position as the foreigners you do not consider reliable. Moreover, if foreigners have no knowledge of your identity, then why have you not removed those sources? Almost the entire Assyrian people article is by non-Assyrians and yet you have not removed a single one. If you want to continue editing on Wikipedia you will have to acknowledge that you are currently going against the most basic rules. Mugsalot (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I understand that Wikipedia should be based on sources. I just hope that there were more sources, so to speak, from Assyrian scholars and such, as they would have better knowledge on what we call ourselves - Which is just simply "Assyrian" in general and "Syriac" to a broader extent. At least, the people in my Assyrian community go by these labels. Mind you, those who go by "Aramean" tend to be separatists. They do NOT want the Assyrian name on them. I only kept the Aramean/Chaldean sources for your sake. I wanted to compromise with you, because at the end of the day I am still a fair editor. Anyway, I still believe that the opening statement should be reworded. Yes, let's keep Aramean and Chaldean, but they should be stated in a specific manner. I'll be happy if we can work on that. Here is my draft of the opening (you can try rephrasing it if you disagree with a certain construct):

Assyrian people (Syriac: ܐܫܘܪܝܐ), or Syriacs (see names of Syriac Christians) are an ethnoreligious group indigenous to the Middle East. Some of them are known as Chaldeans, and others Arameans. Meganesia 13:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Mugsalot, you still haven't replied to this. I want to know your thoughts on this plan. Meganesia 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not replying to, or acknowledging this, I'm going to have to add that intro that I implemented, on the Assyrian people page. Let's see how it will fare with the other users, because I am perfectly content with it, and it compromises to your ideas. Meganesia 12:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Zoupan 21:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours is outright vandalism.--Zoupan 21:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning. There is no concensus for your POV.--Zoupan 22:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning? You have failed to respond to the merge proposal in a constructive manner and you have repeatedly denied any position other than your own, despite the fact your POV is completely unsourced. I have multiple sources that state Syriacs are not a unique ethno-religious group. The sole source you provided to state that Syriacs are a unique ethno-religious group refers to a page that does not exist. There is no other way to approach this if you are going to continue in the way you have. Mugsalot (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? The article is full of reliable sources. Read them. The theme of the article, an ethnoreligious group, is independent of Syriac Christians ("Assyrians"). I have never used the term "unique". I said The article is about Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East ... Please read the introduction and identity section. They, the Orthodox Suryoye, are an ethno-religious community. They may be considered "Assyrian", if this term denotes Syriacs overall. However, from an ethnographical perspective, this community is an ethnic group in its own right, with fundamental markers such as language, culture, history, and identity. I suggest you stop with unilaterally cut-pasting (you even did it without attribution).--Zoupan 22:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source is used in that article that states Syriacs are an ethno-religious group. That source, Donabed and Mako, refers to a page that does not exist. I have provided 5 sources that state Syriacs are not an ethnic group in its own right. How you can confuse providing sources for a POV is beggar's belief. Mugsalot (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are countless reliable sources fully available in the article.--Zoupan 00:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behaviour indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the three-revert rule. I apologise and I will take this rule into account in future. Mugsalot (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mugsalot, Please be advised that cave of Azikh is in Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh! The United nations and all countries (except Armenia) recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as PART OF AZERBAIJAN!. So please correct your wording that Cave of Azikh and other lands were liberated by Armenian army into OCCUPIED BY ARMENIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael6119 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is noted on the Azokh and Azokh Cave articles that ownership is disputed between the NKR and Azerbaijan so to remain unbiased. I reverted your edit as it unnecessarily removed historical and etymological content. I will reword the history section of the Azokh article to prevent a bias. Please do not remove content again in future. Mugsalot (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To: Hi Mugsalot. Why you inserted that is disputed territory? or Liberated by Armenian Army? What Armenian Army is doing on official Azerbaijani territory? My friend pls tell me: liberated from who? From Azerbaijan? No logic! Nagorno-Karabachos is a part of Azerbaijan. Pls go to UN political map and check it! Pls be advised that the UN, OSCE, NATO, CIS plus all world countries (except Armenia) recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan. So what kind of liberation? Your provision that it is disputed territory is absolutely wrong! You do not have any rights!! to express this point in wiki!! Are you member of International Court or member of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs that tries to solve the issue? Who appointed you to say that? Are you appointed by the UN or the OSCE to indicated it as disputed territory? So you article does not reflects international law. You article must be impartial and follow to the International Law. What world or even Armenian organisation says that is a disputed territory? No sources and evidences!!). Thus your article is not neutral and directly supports only Armenian side. Moreover, it supports Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh! So pls immediately correct your article in accordance with International Law and pls delete: "liberated by Armenian army and Army of "NKR"! That is violating of wiki rules for neutrality, impartiality and International Law. Thank you for understanding and cooperation. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael6119 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I correctly noted that it is disputed territory as that is a fact that Azerbaijan and the NKR dispute ownership of the village, there's no bias in acknowledging disagreement between states. I personally did not add that Azokh was liberated as you can see here [9]. Mugsalot (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To: Hi Mugsalot. Thanks for corrections and understanding. Pls be advised that no one country (including Armenia) or any international organization (UN, OSCE, NATO, CIS and others) recognise so called "NKR". So this artificial entity could not dispute any piece of the land with the Rep of Azerbaijan. And so called "NKR" or even Armenia never applied to the International Court or to the UN to dispute any Azerbaijan's village. Thus, pls delete word "disputed" it provides a wrong info to readers. Thank you again. Good luck. P.S Armenians now internationally present Assyrian Great Heritage as Armenian. So you have to be careful. Thanks

Hi, you're welcome, editors with a POV change the wording quite often so it's easy to forget to change it back. As you say, the NKR is not recognised internationally and as such territories occupied by the NKR are recognised de jure as Azerbaijani territory and the districts they are legally a part of are mentioned, however, as the de facto situation is that the territory is occupied by the NKR, we must also list the districts it is actually or de facto part of. By noting both Armenian and Azerbaijani sides Wikipedia can avoid a bias, I hope you understand. Mugsalot (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mugsalot, I've just seen that there is already Subject. so, I opened discussion reg this Article, but no respond. Can we talk about it? there is incorrect info ignoring official sources. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, r.e.: Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going >>>here<<<, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shmayo (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You always edit page about Nakhchivan city which is located in Azerbaijan. You always add to its name prounciation armenian version. Why ? I will delete all of them ! Azerbaijaniboy (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I left a general response to your modifications of this article on its talk page. In general, you cut out too much without discussion.I am not going to revert you but I am going to readd some content I feel is relevant.Botteville (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Botteville: If you add a video, I will be extremely unimpressed. Mugsalot (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does it. You are bringing over the discussion of videos from Knossos. This is a sarcastic remark. Videos were never in question here. I now view you as a vandal. Please stop removing all the material I add to this article. You have many comments. Let us take them one sentence at a time. I disagree with almost everything you say; furthermore, I do not think they were made objectively. By the way I am not through with Knossos. I will be back at some point and we will straighten it out. Right now this is what I am working on, and I suggest you let me work on it. I will respond to every sincere and reasonable comment. Outside of the responses to specific tags, this is the last discussion I am going to waste on you.Botteville (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Botteville: Honestly, mate, I think you're hilarious. You talk about the article as if it's your own and all you've added was ramblings about boats and crossings and forts, and I'm the vandal! Why don't we compare your 41 edits to my single edit that wrote the article [10]? If you want to work on something, read WP:YFA first, and do it in your sandbox so you don't make a mess of what I've written so far. Mugsalot (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you wrote the original I will make an exception to the "no discussion" policy and tell you exactly what is wrong. First of all do not call me "mate," "buddy," "pal" or any of those. You have to earn that, which you have not. I note your disrepectful and disdainful tone. You seem to hate me because I dared to expand "your" article. This is immature. What was wrong with the original article? Well, first of all, it was very short and had none of the frills no box, no pictures, no data I took it for a stub. This is true of many if not most of the ancient Greek articles. I want to see some data about the site, some archeology, some history, explanations of special terms where warranted. You seem to have covered the whole history of Abydos in several short sentences. Moreover, the sentences were disconnected - you have to jump from topic to topic without transition. I like to see some continuous narrative, a story, not a collection of asterisked items without the asterisks. Also, there was no background of any kind. If the reader did not already know what all those terms meant he could not understand the article. Now, for the writing. I'm a native English speaker, have been a professional writer. Although I do not always write good English I understand what is good and what not and can take suggestions. I don't care to have my English condemned as sub-standard by persons who never spoke native English in the first place. You can write a child's English all right - short, choppy, unconnected sentences - but continuous adult English? Not demonstrated so far. So, considering that I am working on this article, I must ask that you quit taking out everything I do, stop with the sarcastic remarks and the hate, and tag every item you feel is inappropriate so that I can explain why it is not or else agree with you and change it. I think that about covers it.Botteville (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding Category:21st-century Anglican archbishops is a stage too far. Just Category:21st-century archbishops is better. He was never part of the Anglican Community as such. It was a break away group of Anglo-Catholics. I knew John when we both worked at the University College of the Northern Territory, now part of Charles Darwin University. --Bduke (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added John Hepworth to the category 21st century Anglican archbishops as his article states he was a primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, which seems to be a Continuing Anglican movement organisation, and the Anglican archbishops category includes both Anglicans and Continuing Anglicans. So would you say he's not a Continuing Anglican? Mugsalot (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Continuing Anglican movement is very minor fringe group, but if it says somewhere that the Anglican archbishops category includes both Anglicans and Continuing Anglicans then fine. --Bduke (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits on Kferze, I changed from Assyrian to Aramean because they are Arameans , and they consider themselves as Arameans, have always done. OromoyoAWKITSuryoyo (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edits as you failed to produce any evidence to support that statement. Please provide sources in future. Mugsalot (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I didn’t need to, because your source in German says Syro-Aramäische Familien. jahrestag. OromoyoAWKITSuryoyo (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not respond immediately as I am an MA student, and thus I am quite busy. The Foundation for Conservation and Promotion of the Aramaic Cultural Heritage is the only source to use the term 'Aramean' whereas the others I provided use the term Assyrian, hence why I used the term Assyrian. I will revert your edit again as the source you provided ([11]) is an archived copy of Wikipedia, and is therefore not a reliable source, whereas The Syriac Gazetteer is. Mugsalot (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your sources says ”Syro-Aramäische Familien” or do you claim that Syriac and Aramean = Assyrian? OromoyoAWKITSuryoyo (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Turkish source says Süryani, which means Syriac and not Assyrian. Assyrian in Turkish is Asur (plural: Asurlular). Same thing with Arabic Al-Siryaniya (السريانية), Assyrian is Ashuri (اشوري). Same in Aramaic, Syriac is Suryoyo/Suryaya (ܣܘܪܝܝܐ), Assyrian is Othuroyo/Aturaya (ܐܬܘܪܝܐ). Some claim that Syriac = Assyrian, although that is not the case. A Nestorian (East-Syrian/Aramean, today ”Assyrian”) said ”ܡܛܠ ܕܠܝܬ ܗ̱ܘܐ ܠܴܪ̈ܡܝܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ ܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ ܒܕܡܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ”, which is translated to ”For the Arameans, that is to say the Syrians/Syriacs, had no part in Christ’s blood”. East-Syrian (Nestorian) Metropolitan, in The book of the Bee, chapter 23, p 99. Who were Abgar the Black and Michael the Great? They were both Arameans (Syrians), Michael the great is also called Michael the Syrian (ܡܝܟܼܐܝܠ ܪܒܐ، ܡܝܟܼܐܝܠ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ).

”The kingdom which has been established by our Aramean race, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syrians…”, Syriac-Aramaic: ”ܐܘܡܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܒܢܝ̈ ܐܪܡ ܕܐܬܩܪܝܘ ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ” – Michael the Great (Michael the Syrian).

”Ṭur Abdin is the mountain where the remnants of the Aramean Syriacs still survive” – Al-Masudi, Arab historian 896-956 AD.

Your sources say Syriacs, that is a synonym to Aramean. I also have not seen one single human from that village that consider them as Assyrians, they all say Syriac-Arameans (ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ܆ ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ). OromoyoAWKITSuryoyo (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are new to Wikipedia and thus unfamiliar with the rules so I am more than happy to clarify this for you. It is evident you are passionate and willing to contribute towards this topic which is in dire need of a great deal of attention on Wikipedia.

As per WP:PSTS, you must rely upon "reliable, published secondary sources". To quote Michael the Syrian or Al-Masudi is to quote a primary source, which is heavily frowned up as it reflects your own interpretation, and as you are not an accredited scholar, is irrelevant and has no place on Wikipedia, as much as my own interpretation. Also, to say that you "have not seen one single human from that village that consider them as Assyrians, they all say Syriac-Arameans", is an example of anecdotal evidence, which is even more irrelevant than a primary source, and has no place anywhere beyond the pub.

In regard to the article itself, "Syriac" and "Aramean", as well as "Chaldean", are well attested to be synonyms of "Assyrian" to refer to the modern people. I would direct you to the list of references I compiled some time ago that support this conclusion. This is not my claim, this is simply the argument of most scholars on this subject. If you can find more scholarly references on this subject, I would be glad to read them when I have the time. Mugsalot (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”The Aramean name is the right name for our people, it is a scholarly naming that has its geographical roots.” – Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Babylon. This qoute is published. Saint-Adday.com. OromoyoAWKITSuryoyo (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mugasalot,

I am slightly confused as to why the category "Assyrian settlements" was removed. I understand the pages already had "Assyrian communities in Iraq"; however, these are not mutually exclusive categories, as the former includes communities outside of Iraq (eg. Turkey and Iran). Should users only add "Assyrian communities in Iraq" to Iraqi Assyrian communities and "Assyrian settlements" to non-Iraqi Assyrian communities? Is the use of both considered redundant? Thanks for the help and your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herengracht005 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand the confusion. Category:Assyrian settlements is for communities that cannot be put into subcategories, such as Category:Assyrian communities in Turkey etc. If an article is in one of those subcategories, such as that of Iraq, then it doesn't have to be in the parent category, which is Category:Assyrian settlements in this case. This helps to keep things organised and clear. Mugsalot (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herengracht005 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Assyrian tribes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This page serves no purpose as there is a page title "List of Assyrian tribes" that contains the same info. The "List of Assyrian tribes" page is being planned to be moved to "Assyrian tribes" but this Category page is blocking that move. In summary, deleting this category page and moving "List of Assyrian tribes" to "Assyrian tribes" would clean things up

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Assyriandude (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mugsalot,

Are you a moderator?

--Lahawlaquwataillahbillah (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not a moderator. I reverted your edits as they were unsourced. Please provide sources for your edits. Mugsalot (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mugsalot, thanks you a lot for your add to Idil/Azakh. I clarified a little that the locality today is called Idil, and called it Idil from the time it was officially renamed to Idil. I kept Azakh though until the time it was renamed in 1937. I hope you agree with this clarification. If not, just let me know. Maybe there can be a reference to the Turkification policy...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's fine by me, thanks for leaving a message. Mugsalot (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the article Al Malikiya/Dayr? Someone wanted to remove the Syriac name. I re-added it with a cn tag.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not familiar with the Assyrian presence in Syria as I typically write about their communities in Iraq and Turkey, so I don't have any resources immediately available. I also couldn't find a reliable source for the Syriac or Kurdish names currently on the article, so typically if I was rewriting an article I would just get rid of it. I did find [12] that attests that it is "known as Derik by both Kurds and Assyrians" (p. 12). Mugsalot (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it’s very clear what’s happening here. I see that several times the same topic is being discussed here, without any solution. I see you’re an Assyrian yourself as can be read on your page and at the same time you’re the only one who votes against a page about the modern identity of the Arameans. It’s in no way neutral for you to join the discussion.

• I think the question would be, ‘can the Arameans be excluded from the page Assyrian People’, because I clearly mentioned a strong rejection of it by (probably) Assyrian Wikipedia editors. We should once again point out that Wikipedia is not a platform where politic agendas of a group or nation should be promoted.

• I think historically we can all agree on the fact that these 2 groups don’t share the same ancestral homeland or history. We can even read that they fought against eachothers empires.

• ”In the next half century, during the reigns of Ashurnaṣirpal ii (883–859 b.c.e.) and, particularly, *Shalmaneser iii (858–824 b.c.e.), the Assyrians succeeded in subjugating the Aramean states in Syria, on the one hand, and Babylonia, on the other" [13].

• There even is a page about the Assyrian conquest of Aram.

• So the next question we have is do the modern descendants of these people do agree that they are the same or did they grow out to seperate identities/nations?

• Opinions differ on this question. For example in Israel people can register themselves with an Assyrian nationality or with an Aramean nationality [14].

• The state does not see them as one nation and the people themselves don’t see themselves as one nation too.

• How do we know?

• Both groups have a seperate flag, the Assyrian flag and the Aramean-Syriac flag also both groups do have different universal organizations to represent them: The WCA (Worl Council of Arameans) recognized by the United Nations (UN) and the Assyrian Universal Alliance who’s a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

• Its also worthy to point out that Assyrians in Israel and Arameans in Israel are two seperated pages and that the page Arameans in Israel is attacked by Assyrian nationalists several times till it was protected by Wikipedia admins.

• My conclusion: the edit on this article needs to be reverted and the page needs to be protected to prevent vandalism by accounts registred less than X days.H0llande (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: @Drmies: I had tried to move this rubbish to the actual Arameans talk page but the formatting is broken, where he clearly originally meant to put it [15]. I'd be grateful for your input, whether it means checking his ip or any other measures you think are appropriate. This user has restored this edit [16] that I originally reverted, and discussed with User:MixedButHumann (now blocked), with good reason on this talk page. The user is asserting that a consensus was reached on the basis of the number of yes votes, none of which pointed to any reliable evidence, and some of the voters have since been blocked, without actually contributing to the discussion himself. It's so immensely tiring dealing with users such as this with arguments as baseless as this, so it would be very helpful for some help. I apologise if you're the wrong users to ask from. Mugsalot (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mugsalot as I stated you are the only one against a page about the modern Arameans since you are an Assyrian yourself. You are in no ways neutral to make any edits regarding these topics. You vandalized the page Arameans in Israel also [17]. Stop using Wikipedia for your political agenda. I ask you both :@El C: @Drmies: to note that user:Mugsalot is an Assyrian himself who several times vandalized pages by removing Aramean or replacing it by Assyrian. It seems like this user is against any pages regarding the Arameans because from his POV they belong to the Assyrian People can you both please explain that Wikipedia is in no way a platform to discuss political POVs, because it seems like this user don’t gets it regarding to his edits and pro Assyrian POV. I also nominated the page for a protection to prevent vandalism and also please see the text about consensus above. H0llande (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H0llande, the next time I see you write something like "you are editing in this or that way because of your ethnicity" I will block you. And the next time I see you make twenty consecutive edits and reverts to a talk page I will also block you, because it seems you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia properly. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, could you explain me why it’s wrong to mention Mugsalot his ethnicity? Since he mentioned several times himself that he is an Assyrian. And that’s where the whole problem is going about since Assyrians try to claim Aramean heritage. That’s why I mentioned that it is in no ways neutral to join the discussion. It was not an assumption but rather a fact that he stated himself. But anyways I will try not to use personal attacks on an Wikipedia editor, even tho it was never my intention to personal attack someone, but rather the aim to get politics and nationalistic POV’s out of Wikipedia.H0llande (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H0llande, I cannot judge your intention, but I can judge your edits, and discrediting someone's work because of your thoughts about what their ethnicity means is not OK. By the same token, you ought to judge your opponent based on their edits. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to ask why you’re deleting the Aramean name of Beth Kustan? Yours sincerely Dr. Martin Bey Drmartinbey (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But not everyone is Assyrian in Beth Kustan, the majority is Aramean Drmartinbey (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with Kurdish names on Banoka article? I am from this village and it's %100 Kurdish. Serchia (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was very clear. You provided no sources, and you restored poor links and a Facebook link. Your personal experiences are wholly irrelevant. Mugsalot (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of wiki articles with no sources to native names. When a place is inside an official region, then it is alright to write the name of the place in the official language of the region even without mentioning the sources. Also, I'm sure not having sources in the article was not your reason to edit the article. Serchia (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you. You provided a reference, I don't care about the article anymore. If you want to accuse me of something, don't beat around the bush. Mugsalot (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Template:Maphrians and Metropolitans of the East. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In future, please make edits in accordance with common sense. Those pages still need to be represented in the template, there's no rule as far as I'm aware that prohibits red links in templates, and if you're so avowedly against red links, simply edit the formatting, and leave the content. I will restore the template as it was prior to your poor edit, please refrain from further such editing. Mugsalot (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maphrians and Metropolitans of the East has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elizium23 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize to you for my aggressive and testy attitude in disputes. The disruption in the St. Thomas Christian topic is exactly why I am so involved in it, and I am a vandal-fighter at heart, but sometimes content creators like you become the target of my crusade and the results are often unfortunate. I don't mean you any harm! I want to thank you for setting me straight on the "Baselios" question, because before I didn't have any clear information! I have withdrawn the RM as you can see. Perhaps if you think it correct, we can work on undoing some of those earlier moves and add in the name where it would be appropriate? Elizium23 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly are the bigger man in apologising first, and I can admit I was overly defensive over the template and articles I had created, so I do owe you an apology also. Thank you for rescinding the RM, admittedly I was mostly surprised anyone was even aware those articles existed in the first place, let alone someone wanted to change their titles! I'm really not that knowledgeable about the articles whose titles have been changed (1) so I'm not sure how much help I can be, particularly as I am quite busy already irl and with Syriac Christian subjects, but the convention on Syriac bishops might be of some interest to you. Mugsalot (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I opened discussion reg this Article, but no respond. Cn we talk about it? there is incorrect info ignoring official sources.--Aydin mirza (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aydin mirza, I've left a reply on the Azokh talk page. Mugsalot (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I will provide with the source.--Aydin mirza (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for desturb, but there is no respond from another pages. And apply to you, although there is the same in Section Talk for the article. So, I have no any remark concerning the article, but the name is not correct accordance the sources/ Please, see the sources (Azykh Cave):

1) Encyclopedy Iranika(ARCHEOLOGY viii. REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN 6th part you find it) https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/archeology-viii-northern-azerbaijan-republic-of-azerbaijan-1 2) V. Doronichev, "The Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus: A Reappraisal of the Data and New Approaches" in PaleoAnthropology 2008, p147, 132 etc. This source is in the current article also. 3) "Azykh Cave". Archived from the original on 2017-12-23. Retrieved 2017-12-26. Also from the current article. 4) Лазуков Г. И., Гвоздовер М. Д., Рогинский Я. Я., «Природа и древний человек» Издательство «Мысль», 1981 стр 71-72 (in Russian) 5) Пещера Азых — The Azykh cave / Mamadali Huseynov [М. М. Гусейнов], [34] с. ил., 5 л. ил. 21 см, Баку Б. и. 1981. 6) "GREAT ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY" (Большой Энциклопедический словарь). Now, please, let me know if there is any independance source concerning this toponym except new scienific studies after 1990 that refers to archeology, not toponym. And could you, please, assist me to correct this missunderstanding? Aydin mirza (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aydin mirza, you seem to have everything under control on the Azokh cave talk page. You might like to be aware that "Azykh cave" generates 10,400 results on Google, whereas "Azokh cave" generates 7,220 results, so the former is more prevalent. Mugsalot (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mugsalot, I understand it, but one question. Wikipedia is based on the voting or right and reliable information? This method is the solution if there is no reliable sources. So, please, I'd like to trust that wikipedia project is independent. And could you,please, confirm that there is the most important and reliable source in wikipedia is results on Google? Aydin mirza (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added the sources from Russian Encyclopedy (site of Culture Ministery) and other Azerbaijan official site 1996. As many as discover new sources I will send it. By the way, you haven't replied. I'd like to understand the position. was it advice or just your opinion? do we discuss or just should just wait for 1 week and close the discussion after renaming? Aydin mirza (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aydin mirza, recently I haven't been as active on Wikipedia as I have been in the past due to being busy irl, hence the late reply. Article titles are typically decided by WP:COMMONNAME, whereby the most common name is used, and thus Google search results are a useful tool in deciding this. In this case, I had another look, and it appears "Azokh cave" generates 18,500 results whereas "Azykh cave" gets 93 results, so the former is more prevalent, and will likely remain the article title then. I would suggest you consult the previous discussion in regard to changing the article name, here. Mugsalot (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but let me remind that you've told me in the beginning of discussion that in case I have reviable source, it could be negociated (If you have citations from reliable sources for the content you aim to add, then I also have no qualms with that. Mugsalot (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)). Additional to that CuriousGolden supported it and proposed in this section that Azokh Cave be renamed and moved to Azykh Cave.And you haven't replied yet reg reliability in Wikipedia project. Do you think and confirm that Google search results are the most important and reliable sources? There were no right negociation with reliable sources and the case was closed. But I move now in accordance to the rules. Have I no right to open this subject again? Please, say only what is the most important in this Project - Google search result or sources that confirm and show the correct information? Otherwise we should announce that Wikipedia is not Encyclopedi but the result of voting. I wouldn't like to press but the articles in Wikipedia are for the people applying for the correct information. Aydin mirza (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iam trying best for Syriac Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. It's already completed, If you know more about, give help, don't do edit war or Undo Eldhose ^Talk 13:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for information, discuss on talk page Eldhose ^Talk 13:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iam making destructive repeated editing with my unknown, but article already to end and clear, then don't do undo! Iam don't do any false either, given information is reliable for article. Eldhose ^Talk 13:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eldhorajan92, I reverted your edit for several reasons. It is evident you are not a natural English-speaker, and whilst you have added information largely from reliable sources, the presentation is difficult and mostly poor. You removed sourced content in relation to the acquisition of the monastery of Saint Mark, and the formatting of your references is partly inadequate. I can support the addition of some background history, but some of your additions are excessive and somewhat irrelevant in my opinion. I'll filter through your edit slowly as I am busy irl, but I would seriously suggest in future you practise editing in your sandbox for the benefit of your quality of English and your referencing. Mugsalot (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again request for help! not for revert

I am disagree with about St. Magdalene church My fact is the site was the house of Simon the Leper, who invited Jesus to supper(with in of John of Wurzburg (1160-1170 AD)) But they argue that the temple was founded in the fifth century.

And also, Iam added about history, Patriarch name used(yet didn't have patriarchal rank), Bishop name, split of chalcedon and non chalcedon in jerusalem church(With the help of Theodosius of Jerusalem Article) and their patriarch's, Jerusalem church in early centuries,List of Churches... etc.

The point of St. Mark Monastey is that the evidence and explanation they gave did not match, so they believed it was a false story, and then another evidence was discovered and completed.

Don't forget to include these things. So please don't revert. Correct the mistakes as much as you can and help. Thank you for your usefulness and comments. Eldhose ^Talk 09:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to let you know that Velonici filed a request for arbitration with you as a party. It has been removed as premature. As they failed to let you know when they filed the request, this message is letting you know that they filed one and that it has also been removed as premature. If you have questions for me, ask them via a ping or at my talk page. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mugsalot,

thanks for the report. Please keep WP:3RR in mind next time.

Content disputes are not "vandalism", and the best place to discuss the content is the article's talk page, not individual user pages (which are useful to discuss user conduct). If someone disagrees, please invite them to the correct talk page instead of encouraging them to split the discussion across multiple user talk pages. Please also note that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, that was not a content dispute. A user removing sourced content without discussion on the talk page, accusing another of POV without evidence, and reverting two users seven times constitutes vandalism. Also, surely you blocking Pepoeko from editing Syriac Orthodox Church for two weeks proves you agree his removal of sourced content constitutes obvious vandalism and thus as per WP:3RRNO my edit is permissible. In addition, there was consensus as myself, Vif12vf (1, 2), and Sargon Gallu (who has thanked me for each time I have reverted vandals' removal of the same content) all agreed with that sentence's inclusion in the lead paragraph. Mugsalot (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's disruptive editing. Enough to justify a block, but done with the intent to improve the encyclopedia. Please don't call it vandalism, and don't expect this to be covered by WP:3RRNO. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mugsalot, the Syriac name for Mangesh, Iraq seem to be wrong and also uses a circular reference. Ishtar TV does have the Syriac name[18] but I don't have the script knowledge to transcribe it. If you do, could you please correct the name? Thanks. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semsûrî, apologies for the late response. Thank you for pointing this out to me. My script knowledge isn't perfect but I'll give it a look, but in the mean time if you want to remove the Syriac name in the article then I have no issue with that. Mugsalot (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day, there used to be Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board. Twelve years later, and the same disputes are still popping up.
Haha, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MJL, thank you for the message and trip down memory lane, I faintly recall seeing that board some time ago, but I've never used it. Most users on either side of these disputes get banned for one reason or another sooner or later so it's more suitable to put out bush fires where they pop up. Best wishes, and have a happy new year. Mugsalot (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] Same to you! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mugsalot, I've been busy on other topics but anyway we can discuss now. First, the justification that you provided is unclear, the justification was "incorrect content" while I gave you sources so its not my belief, the second justification was "Cizîra Botan is a region", know but the name includes the city also according to here and here p.4-5. Although I haven't done an official research about all sources. My greetings. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 00:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torivar, I have replied to you here. Mugsalot (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why do you keep removing my content? Your source is a text on a white background, I linked to two other websites that says ܟܦܪܙܐ, I even referenced George A. Kiraz in the description of my edit. I personally know some priests from that village, they confirmed that it’s spelled ܟܦܪܙܐ in Classical Syriac (Kṯāḇānāyā / Leššānā Sep̄rāyā). Johannesgabrielsson (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johannesgabrielsson, I have fixed the link for the reference for the Syriac name and added more content to the article. Mugsalot (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, thank you, that looks better :)Johannesgabrielsson (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is problem , Deraluk article , I am from Iraq , why you remove , you do not know about city , why you remove sources , what is your problem in this article , are you from Iraq ,Hamaredha (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamaredha, please discuss your issues with my edit on the article's talk page. I explained in the edit summary that I removed your content because it was poorly written and made no sense in English. I appreciate English is not your first language. Mugsalot (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First language or second language or third language this is not important for you , Deraluk , may be unnecessary information for you but for another person may be necessary, you must understand me Hamaredha (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

where is problem in zambil froosh , why , answer me , do you have answer , Hamaredha (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss an issue with my edit on that article, please do so on that article's talk page. Mugsalot (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do that , I wait your answers in talk page Hamaredha (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why you do not want answer me in talk page , do you have any problem , I see this vandalism work in zambil froosh , answer me Hamaredha (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ( Category:Burial monuments and structures in Iraq), Hamaredha (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on Severus of Antioch is absolutely first class! Have you considered taking it to WP:GAN? With a little lead expansion, and perhaps a brief section on his reception/legacy, it would be a perfect candidate imo. Regardless, great work! Aza24 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will add that Severus is a rather significant hymnographer, so I would be happy to add a section on that to help with preparing for a potential GAN, if its a topic that interests you less. No pressure, of course. Aza24 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, thank you! I don't fully understand WP:GAN truthfully. The lead definitely needs work, I agree. I look forward to reading your additions! Mugsalot (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN is not a huge hassle, I assure you, but it's very rewarding. I've found two or three solid sources on his hymns and will try to get that section done in the following weeks. When I do so, I'll touch base, and we can discuss nominating it, perhaps? Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, sounds good to me! Mugsalot (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning/night/afternoon or whatever. As there is an Antiochian Greek Christians category, I don't see why there can't be a Antiochian Syriac Christians category. As a Syriac Antiochian Christian myself, (with both Syriac Catholique and Syriac Orthodox people in my family) I find meaningless and derogatory associating Syriac and Assyrian as synonyms as well as approaching West Syriac Churches more to East Syriac ones than to the Rum community (aka Greek Orthodox and Melkites). Precisely because our past development within the Church of Antioch, we are more similar to the Rums than to the Assyrian/Chaldeans from Mesopotamia. My surname is Greek for instance, and I am a Syriac Christian whose family comes from a town in West Syria named in the Ancient Testament. Nothing to do with Mesopotamia. I do not intend to write an academic paper, and there is not much academic work on this issue, but that isn't enough to say that the term is non-existent or mistaken. Best regards. --Sempta (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sempta, please see my post on your talk page. Mugsalot (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, please see my post on my talk page. --Sempta (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, please see my post on my talk page. --Sempta (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sempta, you don't have to keep editing my talk page to let me know to respond to the discussion on your talk page. Mugsalot (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't really know how this work yet. New around here. --Sempta (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found this source here. In it, there is some info on Chaldean Assyrian people in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, thank you for this! I'll give it a read. Mugsalot (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are an Assyrianist minded Aramean which is a member from the ‘Assyrian’ Church of the East who is very biased. Is that true?

Your edits show how bad you try to Assyrianize Syriac/Aramean information and pages on wikipedia. I think this deeply silly. In my opinion wikipedia should block you from having any influence on Aramean/Syriac pages. You are to biased.

Your argument that the ‘Assyrian’ label is the label for Arameans, Chaldeans and Assyrians is ridiculous.

We could also say that the Aramean label is the label for Syriacs, Chaldeans and Assyrians because you all speak Aramaic. Or we can say the Syriac label is the label for all because they all belong to Syriac churches and speak Syriac-Aramaic. Let us not forget that they all call theirselves Suryoye/Suraye/Suryaye in Aramaic and the translation of this word into English is Syriac (old term Syrian).

The ‘Assyrian’ label is not accepted by the majority of Syriac christians. The Assyrian name dates back to the 19th century when British forces called Eastern Arameans/Syriacs for ‘Assyrians’. These people have nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians nor are they their children. Modern Assyrians and Chaldeans are Aramaic speaking Arameans. 181.41.15.176 (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mugsalot is an Assyrianist minded Aramean which is a member from the ‘Assyrian’ Church of the East who is very biased. Is that true?

Your edits show how bad you try to Assyrianize Syriac/Aramean information and pages on wikipedia. I think this deeply silly. In my opinion wikipedia should block you from having any influence on Aramean/Syriac pages. You are to biased.

Your argument that the ‘Assyrian’ label is the label for Arameans, Chaldeans and Assyrians is ridiculous.

We could also say that the Aramean label is the label for Syriacs, Chaldeans and Assyrians because you all speak Aramaic. Or we can say the Syriac label is the label for all because they all belong to Syriac churches and speak Syriac-Aramaic. Let us not forget that they all call theirselves Suryoye/Suraye/Suryaye in Aramaic and the translation of this word into English is Syriac (old term Syrian).

The ‘Assyrian’ label is not accepted by the majority of Syriac christians. The Assyrian name dates back to the 19th century when British forces called Eastern Arameans/Syriacs for ‘Assyrians’. These people have nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians nor are they their children. Modern Assyrians and Chaldeans are Aramaic speaking Arameans 181.41.15.176 (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot is manipulating information on Aramean pages and Assyrianizing the Syriac/Aramean nation. He is pissing off Arameans on purpose and edits everything that he says as a threat to his Assyrian minded ideas.

This is not fair towards the Aramean/Syriac people. Arameans are not a ‘subgroup’ of the Assyrian people who are in use of a false created name.

Arameans are an ethnic group who is native to Syria, South Turkey, Lebanon and North Iraq. This region was called ‘Aram’. Modern Arameans are speakers of Aramaic and belong to various Syriac churches.

Mugsalot doesnt want Arameans to gain popularity and his main goal is to Assyrianize all Arameans in name. If he could choose, he would probably not allow Arameans to call theirselves for Arameans. 181.41.15.176 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mugsalot: I have been looking through some of your edits and if I am not wrong you must be interested in Syriac Orthodox Church related articles. There's a discussion going on at Talk:Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. Please check it out and be free to share your opinion.Jude Didimus (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted three times: [19] [20] [21]. Please review WP:3RR as you are evidently mistaken about what counts as a revert. SmartSE (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, I was about to add a similar message. What you may be forgetting is that all reverts are counted per WP:EW "whether involving the same or different material" DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically he has performed 3 reverts but this is a "violation" which probably every editor who edits a page thoroughly will perform. Immediate reverts he has performed one and to report another editor for one revert as it has been done in this case I'd see as disruptive editing. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that anyone can edit Index Anatolicus and as such cannot be considered RS. I think its best to remove it from Yemişli, Uludere. Semsûrî (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî: I didn't know that it was that sort of website. That's a shame. In that case then yes it's best to remove that bit unfortunately. Thanks for letting me know. Mugsalot (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Semsûrî (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know of any literature on Assyrians that mentions the village of Arbūsh in Hakkari? Wilmshurst seems to be omitting it. Semsûrî (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of Erbeesh on page 295 of Aboona, H. (2008) Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: Intercommunal relations on the periphery of the Ottoman Empire and Erbesh on page 299 of Wilmshurst. If you want to create the article, I can add the Assyrian history afterwards. Mugsalot (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted the article and waiting for it to be submitted. Thanks for the links, I'll take a look at them. Semsûrî (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Br Ibrahim john and its Talk page are disruptive. If you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it disruptive to point out a user who was blocked for sockpuppetry has resumed the previous behaviour for which they were blocked? They've gone straight back to what they were doing nearly two years ago. This is farcical. Mugsalot (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI is for allegations of socking, not for general complaints about behavior of an editor who was previously blocked for socking. Your edits are an abuse of process.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sockpuppet of a user who was initially banned for identical behaviour and then abused multiple accounts to circumvent that ban and because they asked nicely they can go back to doing it and you're accusing me of abuse of process? Mugsalot (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and my warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]