Talk:Yusuf Akbulut

message: I was going to write:
I don't know why we should indicate his village, but if we should do that it should be like this. denizTC 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: my last edit summary

message: Once again I'm bringing up the same subject in light of the recent reverts. The rationale for removing the original Hürriyet article is that some citations can be found that call him an Assyrian. The problem is that finding ideologically-biases articles are very easy. We can find several which call him Aramaean as well: The impact of the Treaty of Lausanne (July 1923) on the Aramean people or The falsification of Aramaean history. These are just as biased and unenlightening as ones calling him Assyrian. What is indisputable is that he is a Syriac Orthodox priest (there is no such thing as Orthodox Assyrian) and that he said that "Syriacs" suffered a genocide. If you need sources: Turkish Court Acquits Fr. Akbulut or The Syriac Priest Yusuf Akbulut .... Note the origins of these two are: cua.edu (ie university) and atour.com (ie an Assyrian organization). Also see the comments on User_talk:Garzo by an admin confirming this reading. Finally, the recent reverts have been blindly removing legitimate information (such as the fact that the problem originated in a newspaper article and several references) in the efforts to replace "Syriac" by "Assyrian" everywhere. This is removing laziness driven by ideology. Ordtoy (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syriac over Assyrian or Aramaean 

message: Wow. I handed out a 3RR warning to the IP based from a bot generated report, then went to the history to see if I needed to hand out warnings to anyone else. I'll be real... my jaw dropped. I'll be issuing some additional warnings here in a moment, but seriously... utilize warnings, request administrative attention, discuss on the talk page. Discussion and consensus and all that. Everyone read up on 3RR and edit warring. Unacceptable. Page is protected for three days. Talk it out, reach an agreement. If edit warring resumes, blocks will be issued. لennavecia 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been planning to ask for a protection of this page for a long time, or at least a semi-protection, but I haven't done it. So, can you please at least semi-protect the page indef? Check the history and the discussion above, the person behind the ip numbers and (the now banned)  and his sock-puppets have been ignoring this for a very long time. The TriZ (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look over the history shortly. لennavecia 19:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, so the sock edits seemed to have stopped at the end of October. I'm going to leave protection as is for now. If there is a problem once the full protection has expired, file a request at WP:RFPP. لennavecia 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it stopped when the sock puppets got blocked, but then some anonymous guy(s) behind ip-numbers started to keep going with the revert-war. It's possible that it is the same user who was behind the sock puppets...The TriZ (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has started again. I'm leavig it to the admins to deal with though. Ordtoy (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection