Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:Logosx127

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Logosx127, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.



Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Change Name of kattumangattu Abraham Mar Koorilose

[edit]

Why your change kattumangattu Abraham Mar Koorilos I into kattumangattu Abraham Koorilos I ? Oytrfu (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oytrfu: Per MOS:HON. Mar is a Honorific used in Syriac Christianity. Logosx127 (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve this draft article of Malabar Independent Syrian Church Metropolitans

[edit]

Please Improve Draft article of Malabar Independent Syrian Church Metropolitans and Move to Mainspace. (Not Remove Mar )

Draft:Zacharia Mar Philexenos I Draft:Joseph Mar Evaniose Draft:Geevarghese Mar Koorilose III Draft:Kuriakose Mar Koorilose VI Draft:Geevarghese Mar Koorilose V Oytrfu (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oytrfu: We have certain policies at Wikipedia, one of which is MOS:HON. Therefore honorific title like Sir, Madam, Mar, Mor, Dr. , etc. will be removed. With that being said I just had a look into the drafts. The main problem is that you haven't provided any reliable source. That means you must add references from books, newspapers, websites etc. You will find atleast some in the internet itself. Just have a look. One you have added references, we will certainly make these articles into mainspace. Just message me if you want anymore help. Regards Logosx127 (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oytrfu: These books will be of great help.

  • Fenwick, John R. K. (2011). "Malabar Independent Syrian Church". In Sebastian P. Brock; Aaron M. Butts; George A. Kiraz; Lucas Van Rompay (eds.). Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic Edition. Gorgias Press.
  • Fenwick, J. R. K. (1992). The Malabar Independent Syrian Church. ISBN 978-1851742271.
  • Fenwick, J. R. K. (2009). The Forgotten Bishops. The Malabar Independent Syrian Church and its Place in the Story of the St Thomas Christians of South India. ISBN 9781607246190.

Logosx127 (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elias of Merv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan. 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) 09:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article not showing in Google Search

[edit]

The Wikipedia article of Kattumangattu Geevarghese Koorilose II Geevarghese Mar Philexenos II Joseph Mar Koorilose IX Not Showing in Google Search this three article is completed 90 days and other confirmations . Please fixed it Oytrfu (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will take time @Oytrfu:, don't be frustrated. Keep adding sourced content to those articles. Logosx127 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Br Ibrahim john per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Br Ibrahim john. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is not fair. Please unblock me. I am not Br Ibrahim John. I am not interested in editing Saint Thomas Christian articles. This is indeed a case of coincidence. I have been working here really hard. Please do not spoil my toil. Just because of two coincidental cases you have just blocked me indefinitely. Let me show some differences between me and Br Ibrahim John, from my reading of their contributions. *Br Ibrahim John was very focussed on articles related to Saint Thomas Christians. On the other hand, I am not at all an expert on that topic and I have not been able to help User:Oytrfu who requested me to help with Saint Thomas Christian articles. [1] *Br Ibrahim John focussed on religious arguments on Talk:List of Maphrians but my arguments were purely based on the references. * What is the logic of a blocked user coming back to edit an article where they are very interested in after this much time. And I have not looked into the dozens of other disputes in which BIJ was part of. *Now about Indo-Persian ecclesiastical relations, my interest was solely based on the fact that it was related to Church of the East. *I had also placed many other move requests like the one that is going on in Papa (bishop). * This is another difference that I've just found out. I restored 'legendary' to the list [2], while BIJ was the one who removed it [3]. * I removed a dubious source[4] that BIJ added to that article [5] I am sure that I will find more if I dig deeper, please unblock me. @Srnec: please involve in this discussion. @Extraordinary Writ: why did you do this to me! Logosx127 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking through the CU logs, there's technical evidence that supports the behavioural overlap that led to the block. I see no evidence that the block is incorrect. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Bbb23: please look into my request. I am not a sockpuppet. Logosx127 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: please look into it again, I swear that I am not a sockpuppet. I have been really working hard here building an encyclopaedia. But now everything is lost in an instant. Please.. Logosx127 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: if that's true, then what stopped you from labelling me confirmed.!! Let me repeat. I am not a sockpuppet. And I've been unnecessarily blocked. Logosx127 (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been a long time since I have last edited here. I accept the reason why you blocked me. I will not repeat it again. So please unblock me and allow me to continue to contribute to Wikipedia.Logosx127 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for over about two months now and I understand that the reason why I am blocked is sockpuppetry. I have never intended to cause any damage or disruption here. I did some actions that I thought were right. But I am now aware of my responsibility to follow the general decisions, abide to consensus making and obey the instructions here. I have always been interested in making this encyclopaedia bigger but some of my actions, especially sockpuppetry, have not been in accordance with it. Although I did not have any malicious intentions, I totally understand that such activities have indeed caused disruption here. Hence, I promise to not involve in sockpuppetry or any other disruption of any kind from now on. I shall also avoid editing topics where I am involved in disputes. If I get a second chance I shall focus only on constructive edits and polite discussions. Therefore please reconsider my indefinite block/ban.Logosx127 (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Didn't you just swear that you're not a sock puppet? Follow the instructions in the standard offer to prove that we can trust you. That's six months of no sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block has crossed six months now. I understand that the reason why I am blocked is the creation of and editing with an account while my original account was under block. I have never intended to cause any damage or disruption here. All I wanted was to contribute to the encyclopedia. I was also keen in distancing myself from disruptive edits and disputes However now am totally aware of my responsibility to follow the general decisions, abide to consensus making and obey the instructions here. I have always been interested in making this encyclopaedia bigger but some of my actions, especially sockpuppetry, have not been in accordance with it. Although I did not intend to do disruption, I totally understand that this action has indeed caused disruption here. Hence, I promise to not involve in sockpuppetry or any other disruption of any kind in the future. Therefore please reconsider my indefinite block/ban. At the same time I deny the new accusation of sockpuppetry which has been raised here lately. I can clearly prove this through the history of my interaction with the user johnchacks in malayalam wiki. During this block period I have never tried to edit english wiki.Logosx127 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's unclear to me why we should trust your word, given that you swore you weren't a sockpuppet earlier, only to subsequently acknowledge you were. Johnchacks last edited on 2022-08-28, meaning six months from then would be 2023-02-28. I don't believe anyone will consider WP:SO sooner than that, given your earlier attempts to mislead us. Yamla (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My unblock request was unjustly declined by Admin Yamla who had previously declined one of my earlier requests. If anyone doubts that I have committed sockpuppetry yet again during my blocking period, the admins are free to do a check. It seems to me that every editor who edits primarily Syriac Christian related articles are allegedly my sockpuppets here. It also seems that it would have been better if the accusers first go through the talk pages and interactions and if still found dubious go for a checkuser or location ckeck. You can also look into my discussions with user johnchacks at Malayalam Wikipedia on various disputes there as I have already written. My block has crossed six months now. I understand that the reason why I am blocked is the creation of and editing with an account while my original account 'Br Ibrahim john' was under block. I have never intended to cause any damage or disruption here. All I wanted was to contribute to the encyclopedia. I was also keen in distancing myself from disruptive edits and disputes However now am totally aware of my responsibility to follow the general decisions, abide to consensus making and obey the instructions here. I have always been interested in making this encyclopaedia bigger but some of my actions, especially sockpuppetry, have not been in accordance with it. Although I did not intend to do disruption, I totally understand that this action has indeed caused disruption here. Hence, I promise to not involve in sockpuppetry or any other disruption of any kind in the future. Therefore please reconsider my indefinite block/ban. At the same time I deny the new accusation of sockpuppetry which has been raised here lately. I can clearly prove this through the history of my interaction with the user johnchacks in malayalam wiki. During this block period I have never tried to edit english wiki.Logosx127 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as stale. You may make a new, hopefully more persuasive request, that addressess the given concerns. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Your best option is to take the Standard offer, as it would appear there aren't any admins convinced enough to lift the block, during the six-months it would help if you made useful contributions to other Wikimedia projects to show you can edit constructively, then once the time has passed make another unblock request and see if administrators are convinced by your request. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StarryNightSky11, yes ofcourse. I am very active in Wikipedia Malayalam and Wikimedia as of now. Logosx127 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Malayalam Wikipedia, I have more than a thousand [edits https://ml.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%95%E0%B4%82:%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%82%E0%B4%AD%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%BE/Logosx127&target=Logosx127&offset=&limit=500], my native language. Very recently, I have created a considerably large and researched article ml:കോട്ടയത്തെ മാർ ഗബ്രിയേൽ. Although most of the sources for this article is in English, I could not create the same article here in English Wiki. You know the reason. I have substantially improved many other articles there in Malayalam. For example the article ml:അഹത്തള്ള, previously a small article is now many times larger and referenced than the corresponding article here. I also contributed to the Wikimedia commons [6] during this block period. My original account is not blocked in both these sites. However I currently use this account alone. I have written about this in my userpage in MLWIKI. Logosx127 (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for quite a long time now. Charges brought against me were: I created a new account while having an older account that was blocked and made edits and lied when asked about it. I do not deny any of this but accept it and regret it. I request the administrators to give me one more chance to work on Wikipedia without ever doing such activity again. I have always tried my best to nurture Wikipedia with my knowledge and experience, especially related to Syriac Christianity and India, during my tenure at Wikipedia and have created some articles and substantially improved many other articles. I just want to continue with such activities if I am unblocked. I've never tried to edit with another account or without an account while I am blocked here. During this period I have been actively involved in Wikipedias in other languages ​​especially Malayalam Wikipedia. By learning from the mistakes made here in English Wikipedia, I have made sure not to repeat the same mistake in Malayalam Wikipedia by disclosing my previous edit history and older account, Br Ibrahim john. Since there has been such a long blocking period, I am expected to be eligible for atleast a standard offer, so I request my unblock request be considered generously.Logosx127 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the totality of this after Bbb23's comments below, my conclusion is that the risk associated with unblocking you at this point is too high: the deception above is pretty elaborate as he mentions. You're free to submit another unblock request, but you'll need to spell out why unblocking you is in the interest of the project, not just how long you have been away. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Logosx127 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser data shows no evidence of recent block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Logosx127 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked from English Wikipedia for a very long time now. I have to face such a situation because of the wrong position I have taken here. I created a new account while having an older account that was blocked and made edits and lied when asked about it. When I was asked questions about this, I repeatedly lied. I did such a wrong thing because I wanted to continue working here. But the method I adopted is never justifiable. If I do it again, I may be able to function unnoticed for a while, but I'm sure it will haunt me forever. I admit that this is nothing less than cheating. I don't want to work here with any kind of malice or any kind of personal gain for me, but for a personal satisfaction of freedom of expression and sharing of information. During this period I have been actively working on Malayalam Wikipedia and Wikimedia however I cannot do so on English Wikipedia because of my own misdeed. I do not deny any of this misbehaviour but accept my guilt and regret it. The reason why I am submitting this application here is because I really want to work here. It is also to correct my past actions and move forward in the way expected of a normal editor. I request the administrators to give me one more chance to work on Wikipedia without ever doing such activity again. I have always tried my best to nurture Wikipedia with my knowledge and experience in a handful of topics, especially related to Syriac Christianity and India, during my tenure at Wikipedia. I have created some articles and substantially improved many other articles. I just want to continue with such constructive edits if I am given a chance. As already stated, I've never tried to edit with another account or without an account circumventing my block. During this period I have been actively involved in Wikipedias in other languages ​​especially Malayalam Wikipedia. By learning from the mistakes made here in English Wikipedia, I have made sure not to repeat the same mistake in Malayalam Wikipedia by disclosing my previous edit history and older account, Br Ibrahim john. I request you to give me a final chance to do the right thing and make useful corrections without repeating the same mistake here again. So I request my unblock request be kindly approved. Logosx127 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You must request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Jpgordon: I do not know the password to my original account and I cannot reset the password as I have not linked it with my e-mail. It is effectively a dead account. I have been using this logged in account for a long time globally. Hence this is my only way.Logosx127 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77908

[edit]

is closed. Too bad about the lying. I really felt this unblock request. It moved me. No idea why user has not been directed to request unblocking via original account. I'm curious about the question above in #Wikipedia article not showing in Google Search. The user asking is blocked as a sock and that article deleted. What then is the connection with this editor? Why ask this editor for help with Google search? And the response was patient and solicitous. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help that seemingly new editor but I do not know who exactly they were. I felt that he is a member of that particular church denomination. Logosx127 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Can you please help me out. I feel like I am forever blocked. I know that you will hesitate to believe me considering my past actions. But can you help me get a standard offer? I am okay if the consensus created is to keep the block. I do not have any malicious intentions here.Logosx127 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be up to the admin who reviews your request here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked from English Wikipedia for a very long time now. I have to face such a situation because of the wrong position I have taken here. I created a new account while having an older account that was blocked and made edits and lied when asked about it. When I was asked questions about this, I repeatedly lied. I did such a wrong thing because I wanted to continue working here. But the method I adopted is never justifiable. If I do it again, I may be able to function unnoticed for a while, but I'm sure it will haunt me forever. I admit that this is nothing less than cheating. I don't want to work here with any kind of malice or any kind of personal gain for me, but for a personal satisfaction of freedom of expression and sharing of information. During this period I have been actively working on Malayalam Wikipedia and Wikimedia however I cannot do so on English Wikipedia because of my own misdeed. I do not deny any of this misbehaviour but accept my guilt and regret it. The reason why I am submitting this application here is because I really want to work here. It is also to correct my past actions and move forward in the way expected of a normal editor. I request the administrators to give me one more chance to work on Wikipedia without ever doing such activity again. I have always tried my best to nurture Wikipedia with my knowledge and experience in a handful of topics, especially related to Syriac Christianity and India, during my tenure at Wikipedia. I have created some articles and substantially improved many other articles. I just want to continue with such constructive edits if I am given a chance. As already stated, I've never tried to edit with another account or without an account circumventing my block. During this period I have been actively involved in Wikipedias in other languages especially Malayalam Wikipedia. By learning from the mistakes made here in English Wikipedia, I have made sure not to repeat the same mistake in Malayalam Wikipedia by disclosing my previous edit history and older account, Br Ibrahim john. I request you to give me a final chance to do the right thing and make useful corrections without repeating the same mistake here again. So I request my unblock request be kindly approved.
I am repeating the same request once again here because I don't know the password to my original account.Logosx127 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Logosx127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked from English Wikipedia for very long time now. I just want to contribute to the movement without causing any trouble. I had written my request and regrets in detail in my previous requests, which you rejected. So I am not going to bore you by repeating it here again. I would like to bring to your attention about the contributions that I have been doing in other Wikipedia sites during this period. These are my clarification for this request I am making. I just want to appeal to all of you that my unblock here willnot create any trouble to anyone of you or the Wikipedia as a whole. In many fields, I am sure that I am the only consistently editing contributor so my unblock would certainly benefit the further building up of this encyclopaedia. I don't want to elaborate this too much such that it turns repetitive and superfluous. I hope that my block will be kindly lifted. Logosx127 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Why are you not requesting unblock via original account? Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User explains here that password is lost and account wasn't linked to email. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost the password to my original account. This was one of the reasons that motivated me to create a fresh account. Presently, I am using the current account for editing in other Wikipedia sites. But resuming my edits with it in English Wikipedia, before working on the existing block, was a great mistake from my part. Logosx127 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may recommend, I'd probably say this user has done enough to justify an unblock. They're in good standing at Malaysian Wikipedia and seems very unlikely to make the same mistakes again that led to the block here in the first place. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MJL asked me to take a look at this. I see their point but am not as convinced, and would like to hear from the admins who dealt with this user on their original account. @Bbb23: Have your feelings changed since July? @RegentsPark: Do you have any thoughts on this request? If the two blocking admins don't support an unblock, this should probably go to an AN appeal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 22:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @--jpgordon, for being bold and generous towards my request. It had been a very terrible time for me here in Wikipedia, regrettably due to my own fault. It has also made me shift my attention to Malayalam Wikipedia and it will continue to be my main focus of editing. I will also be editing here occasionally and I will make sure to keep my promises I've made in my unblock request whenever I do so. Thank you again. Logosx127 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

[edit]

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. You moved a page despite a consensus opposing such a move. Additionally, the overturned previous consensus to move to Syro-Malabar Church was made by many editors who have been blocked since. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion on the issue in the talk page of the article and you are free to respond there. Wikipedia naming conventions are based on WP:Concise, and WP:COMMON. There's no ambiguity in the previous title. It is easier to follow. The move involved far less supporters and by doing so you've broken the consensus created three years back. Therefore my opposition is not an isolated one.Logosx127 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that neither discussion raised much support either way. It seems that most reliable sources–particularly those affiliated with the Catholic Church or with intimate knowledge of it–utilize "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" on first reference and "Syro-Malabar Church" in further references. This is fair similar to how a person's full name is often used on initial reference but then their surname is used for subsequent reference. Additionally, the IP (71.201.78.227) that most recently raised the issue looks at least a bit behaviorally similar to you and operated during your sock block. If that was you, I'd encourage you to say so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's where the Wikipedia naming conventions have their role to play. Saint Theresa of Calcutta or Tensing Gyato may be used on the first line but the article title would be Mother Theresa and Dalai Lama. I really don't think its necessary for me to take responsibility of unknown and unrelated ips for their perceived similarities with me whatsoever. Checkusers have denied scope of any such accusation during this time. So I think we may stick on to this discussion. Logosx127 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you open a new discussion rather than resurrecting an old one with your own rationale. See WP:RSPM on how to do so. Do note that WP:RMC is maintained by an automatic bot with a clear disregard for manual entries in the list. A properly formatted request (as outline in the first link here) will be listed on that page by the bot accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Logosx127 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOTESTACKING

[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and thank you for the reminder. But I just removed it since I think I shouldn't have placed the notification in the first place. Logosx127 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Isaac the Syrian

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Isaac the Syrian, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veneration of Nestorius?

[edit]

Greetings Sir, I have seen you added "Syro-Malabar" in the "Venerated in" Part of the Infobox and the article you sited was in Malayalam unfortunately most of us don't know Malayalam so Could you explain what a PDF you sited says? Also I removed the "Syro-Malabar" in the "Venerated in" part I have seen People use this page to attack Catholicism. Christin1000 (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Christin1000, I totally understand what you are saying. I am sorry for that fact that most of the Wikipedia users who do not know Malayalam and cannot understand the details in that source. But as a native speaker of Malayalam I can certainly help you. So I am adding the English translation of the text in the source pdf in the end of this comment. Before that, I want to clarify a few other things. Here at Wikipedia we operate under certain policies, notably impartiality, critical approach, and reliability. The Nestorian controversy was based on political and semantic issues rather than a theological dispute. We are not building this encyclopaedia out of a religious and emotional angle but with the perspective of historical facts. My suggestion is that you may respond with historical and factual information to those who gets offended or provoked over the content displayed here based on their religious preoccupation and prejudice.
Here is the translation:
Commemoration of the Greek Church Fathers
The Fridays of Lent are commemorations of the public ministry of Jesus Christ. Martyrs and saints who gave unwavering witness to Jesus are especially remembered. Accordingly, in the "Ordo" published for our Church in Rome in 1959, the Fifth Friday of Denaha is seen as the commemoration of the "Greek Church Fathers". But in the 'Sliha' lectionary (Vat.Syr.22) written in 1301 at Kodungallur, it is recorded as the memory of the Greek doctors (i.e. Mar Diodore, Mar Theodore and Mar Nestorius). These are not really Greek doctors, they were the Antiochian doctors who wrote, preached and led the church about the true faith in Greek, the accepted theological language of the day....
The third Doctor is Mar Nestorius. A preacher and theological thinker educated at the Antiochian School, the Emperor invited him to become the Patriarch of Constantinople. However since the differences in the theological concepts used in the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools was not understood, Nestorius was accused of heresy. He was summoned to the Synod of Ephesus (430), denied the opportunity to explain his part, branded as a heretic and finally exiled. Although all his original works were destroyed, considering the book Bazaar of Heracleides and other seven epistles written during his exile, modern theological studies clarify that the 'Nestorian heresy' that 'there are two persons in Christ' is not true. This is confirmed by theologians such as Cardinal Grillmeier, André Dehalo, Luise Abrahamoski, and Sebastian Brock. Pope John Paul II and the head of the Church of the East, Mar Dinkha IV, issued a joint statement of Christology in 1994, that although following different expressions, they note that we share the same faith in Christ.
The Church of the East in the Persian Empire felt that Mar Nestorius had become a scapegoat for their Antiochian theological views, even if he was not a patriarch or bishop of their church or kingdom. That is why the most elaborate anaphora of this church was named 'Sacrament of Mar Nestorius' and among the five occasions of the year when it was to be recited was added the memorial day of the Greek pastors! It is worth noting that the theological studies and practical suggestions has developed for lifting the ban on these holy saints in the unofficial dialogue between the Pro-Oriente centered in Vienna and Syriac churches. Logosx127 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely thank you for your hard work to translate this source, and I am sorry for my mistake. Christin1000 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. It is my responsibility to clarify the information in the source I provided to the other editors here. The translation is largely Google translator's and I did some necessary corrections to it for proper grammar. Logosx127 (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, do you still disagree, @Christin1000 ?Logosx127 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholicos of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category move

[edit]

Hey, since Syro-Malabar Church was moved to its current name, I think we ought to move Category:Syro-Malabar Catholic Church to match. I opened the discussion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syro-Malabar Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Logosx127 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: ). Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latin Catholics of Malabar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chera dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanchi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

[edit]

Please cease edit warring on Joseph Kallarangatt. You are currently trying to reinsert misleading material regarding a conspiracy theory into a BLP, the same content previously inserted by a now-blocked edit-warring sockmaster. Considering your previous blocks for both edit warring and sockpuppetry, it is unusual that you took up this issue shortly after the other account was blocked. Please self-rev. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content having been added sometime back by a now blocked account doesn't mean it is to be removed. I don't think there's anything misleading there. It simply says that the Syro-Malabar Church, in which Kallarangatt is a bishop, believes that what Kallarangatt said is related to the European study report. It is okay to disagree with their belief but that simply does not mean that we should simply remove their opinion from the article entirely. The content I have restored is objectively correct and there is no misleading as it already says that the European study report is about the Afgan Taliban. This restored content is important as it is the opinion of Kallarangatt's organisation and to note that the terminology is not his own. Logosx127 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you feel about content, you're edit warring without participating in discussion. It's made worse because the content is 1.) previously disputed content on a BLP, 2.) was previously inserted by an edit-warring sockmaster, and 3.) contains content that misrepresents a conspiracy theory as having academic support. You will need to self-rev. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally sure about what I have restored. In reality you are the one who is edit warring here. I would suggest you to restrain from removing sourced content unilaterally even when other editors explicitly disapprove your content removal. 1.) It was disputed by you alone. 2.) content having been included by a blocked editor doesn't imply that it is to be removed. 3.) It doesn't misrepresents any of the conspiracy theories, and your conflicting interpretation in simply your POV. The content explicitly says that it is what that was claimed by the Bishop's church and that it is actually related to Afghan Taliban. The added content is not meant to substantiate any part of the Bishop's original statement in any way.Logosx127 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, regardless of what you think, you're violating WP:ONUS: you did not engaged on the talk page, repeatedly restored content from a banned editor, and now are refusing to acknowledge that you did that. There was over a week of discussion, where the only editor in favor of the conspiracy theory-supporting statement was an editor engaged in sockpuppetry. You were edit warring; next time you're reported for edit warring (3RR or otherwise), you'll be blocked indefinitely. Change your behavior. Additionally, I'm further concerned regarding the possibility of socking or meatpuppetry being involved here. Regarding that content, it will be removed again in a week if further support for its inclusion is not found (a banned editor who was engaged in socking when they inserted that content does not count towards a consensus in favor of inclusion). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's you who require further support as the removal was initiated by you only, triggering the entire set of events. This is not the first time I am getting involved in edit disputes with you. Your article ownership behaviour and bad faith towards fellow editors is clear from multiple instances. And let me remind you, don't play the judge and complainant at the very same time. I honestly do not require your classes in any kind. Logosx127 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A toast sandwich for you!

[edit]
Hello bro,

I appreciate your work on W. Thegodfathero (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegodfathero, Thank you! I wish you a nice day. Keep contributing to Wikipedia. Regards, Logosx127 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logosx127&oldid=1258298607"