User talk:Hogshine

I replaced your use of botanicalrealm.com in Ceratozamia chimalapensis. That website generated its articles using a LLM and they are often subtly wrong about plant descriptions, ranges, etc. Thought you may want to know this if you edit other plant species. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I‌ had no idea, the site looks so legit. I don't believe I've used it for other articles but I'll still check. Thanks again for the heads up. Hogshine (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mor Gabriel Monastery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Empress Theodora. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael the Syrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hims.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am reaching out regarding your latest edit on Mor Hananyo Monastery. You added thousands of bytes to the article without any prior WP:CONSENSUS or discussion. Please, before making such edits, especially on controversial topics, as this has been a highly sensitive issue at ANI, reach a consensus first.

I do not want to come off as asserting ownership of the article, this is just a tip. Devi van velden (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Devi van Velden, you actually reverted Mor Hananyo Monastery while I was still working on the final section which I've now published.

It is important to note that I, or anyone else, do not actually need prior permission to edit Wikipedia articles for whatever reason, especially when said edits are monumental improvements to previously inferior versions - which you insist on reverting to based on some perceived notion of POV-pushing. When content is contested, that contention is discussed. If consensus is reached, that version is published; otherwise, the original version remains in place. This is how this works. You're free to contest my version; since I contest yours too, it must be decided through a (in this case) Talk page discussion, preferably in the presence of third parties. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Hogshine (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, this is true: you do not need consensus to edit the article, and anyone who says or implies otherwise is being disruptive - @Devi van velden, please take note here. However, once material has been contested, the WP:ONUS is on the editor seeking to include disputed content. Please see WP:DR for how all this is supposed to work out. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hogshine! Your additions to Mor Hananyo Monastery have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.‌ It was not intentional and I'll take heed in the future.

Is it possible to regain access to the now-blocked sections, at least just once & for my account? Apparently the copyvio'd bit is only a small paragraph while the rest is okay. I'll remove it, double check the article, and republish it without it. It would be great if that's possible, please & thank you! Hogshine (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry it is not possible to give only one person access to the hidden revisions. Also, the amount of copying was massive, not just one small paragraph. Note too that the material was removed repeatedly by more than one editor for reasons other than copyright, so you best speak to them first on the talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there any way I can regain the lost content? Only one paragraph was copied from . Collateral damage includes major improvements & days of work to an inferior article. If possible, could I be privately (e.g. email) sent the last version's source, with or without the copyvio (which I‌ already own since I‌ cited it myself)? I'll make sure future edits are not copyvios.

Other removals were POV edits that have since been resolved. It would give me a chance to reassess the whole article for future contentions as well. Hogshine (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I have undone the revision deletion, but I am not going to restore the content, since two different people objected to its inclusion and there's been no discussion on the article talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That is fine, thank you for restoring it! I'll be more vigilant for copyvios in the future. I'll also manage the republishing process myself through appropriate channels (it was also discussed on my talk page above).

I have now saved the source offline, so if you'd like, you can delete it from the public archive. Cheers, Hogshine (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julian of Halicarnassus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council of Dvin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Hogshine, stop changing our Aramean pages and try to erase us and our history. We are watching you, and our team will not let you continue to use inaccurate terms for us and make us out to be pagans or Nestorians. Osroene25 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

How menacing... check out WP:GS/ACAS and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules on WP:VANDALISM, WP:DIS, WP:V, and most importantly, WP:MEAT. Forward this to your discord server. Cheers, Hogshine (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidentsregarding regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Historynerd361 (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Michael the Syrian is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reverosie -- Reverosie (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Michael the Syrian has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reverosie -- Reverosie (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barhebraeus is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reverosie -- Reverosie (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Hogshine, just wanted to let you know about your nomination of John of Tella to A status on its talk page. This type of status is not something that can be decided by one editor, but has to go through a multi-editor process of review. A status in particular seems to be WikiProject specific, unless the WPs that an article is under don't have that process established . I had noticed the rating from the front page of WP:ASSYRIA after I recently had a successful GA nomination (Defence of Iwardo), so I went ahead just now and changed it to B.

Please note this is not to flank you for your editing. I myself made the same mistake a year ago when I was first starting out , so I have the experience of doing the same thing. But you appear to have been doing a lot of great work on these articles, and I would definitely suggest nominating more of them for GA/FA status as time goes on.

Let me know if you have any other questions, thanks! Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I‌ had no idea this was the process. I might and nominate John of Tella to GA myself. Congrats on Defence of Iwardo's GA! Hogshine (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I also noticed this peer review. Since I'm familiar with the topic, is it okay if I attempt to copyedit Syriac Orthodox Church, or do I have to be a significant contributor to the article, like I would be with a GA nomination? Thanks @Surayeproject3 Hogshine (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem and thanks! I don't know what copyediting entails, but I'm pretty busy in real life and I had honestly forgotten about the Syriac Orthodox Church article, it was part of a group effort to bring it to GA. Feel free to edit it if you wish and I hope to see your changes if you do decide to work on it! Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the reviewer for your GA nom of Barhebraeus has gone inactive. If she doesn't respond to my ping on the review page soon, you can follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a to find a new reviewer. Good luck. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Per this comment, Reverosie has encouraged you to contact a specific editor to take over as reviewer. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll see to it Thanks ~ Hogshine (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--> Historynerd361 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean, and Syriac identity, culture, and politics. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Hogshine. Thank you.) Historynerd361 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Third time's a charm? ~ Hogshine (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barhebraeus has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reverosie -- Reverosie (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you but since you said on the talk of the Syriac Orthodox Church that the claim of anti-Assyrianism is backed up by adding the Makko reference, could you please indicate to me where in Makko (2017) you find backing for that claim? I read through it, and I do not find it. Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I‌ presume it's the following excerpt from page 249 (I added emphasis in bold):

"The concept of unity was maintained in the American diaspora, but gained no greater influence in the Middle East, where it had to face contending majority identities and the refusal of its secular element by both the Jacobite and Nestorian clergy [...] Syriac (Syriac/Aramean) and Chaldean identity conceptions, on their part, remain the opposite of what the national pioneers had hoped to achieve [...] instead of Assyrian unity, there are dual exclusive, denominational, and outspoken anti-Assyrianisms."

The very last sentence is what supports the phrase "forming what is a denominational and outspoken anti-Assyrianism" found in Syriac Orthodox Church. ~ Hogshine (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That was closest I found, but I am not convinced it makes the argument. If we look at the paragraph in full, I struggle to see where it says "The Syriac Orthodox Church is anti-Assyrian". Here is the full paragraph (just to avoid having to go back to the book:

To sum up, from the very beginning of its phase B, the Assyrian nationalist movement suffered from two major obstacles, namely the consequences of genocide and the restructuring of the Middle East. The concept of unity was maintained in the American diaspora, but gained no greater influence in the Middle East, where it had to face contending majority identities and the refusal of its secular element by both the Jacobite and Nestorian clergy who had to deal with pressure from state authorities. During phase C, the political institutionalization of the concept of Huyodo/Khuyada in the Middle East, marked by the foundation of political parties in Syria in 1957 and Iraq in 1979, indeed reinforced hopes for a “mass-implementation” and the completion of the nationalist project that had started with the “awakening” of intellectuals in Urmia, Diyarbakır, and Kharput. As the course of events of the past decades has shown, these hopes were elusive. Today, division prevails over unity in respect of national identity. Syriac (Syriac/Aramean) and Chaldean identity conceptions, on their part, remain the opposite of what the national pioneers had hoped to achieve for their people through the concept of Huyodo/Khuyada; instead of Assyrian unity, there are dual exclusive, denominational, and outspoken anti-Assyrianisms

In my reading, that is a very thoughtful and well-written paragraph summarizing that there are different opinions within the Syriac people and much division, but not a clear cut "Syriac Orthodox are anti-Assyrian". What is more, Makko does not even use "anti-Assyrian" here but anti-Assyrianism (so opposition to the idea of an Assyrian ethnic identity, not opposition to Assyrians"). In short, Makko's text is very good but I do not feel the article currently does it justice. Jeppiz (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It is best to communicate this on Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church#Removing_sourced_content. Ideally we would focus on the content, not user conduct (I would know - I was sanctioned above for exactly that ). ~ Hogshine (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Wise words, thanks! :) Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article John of Tella is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Warriorglance -- Warriorglance (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article John of Tella has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Warriorglance -- Warriorglance (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)