User talk:Zoticus777

September 2020
Hello, I'm Amortias. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Mar_Thoma_Syrian_Church that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 12:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amortias.

I am sorry, I am refraining from all future comments.

Zoticus777 (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What was removed was a derogatory and humiliating entry from a member of another church. Those edits from the editor has no reference nor any historical backing. Will remove such vandalism. Zoticus777 (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at List of Malankara Metropolitans. ''Discuss sources on the talk page if you feel they should be removed. WP:BIASED sources are not invalid for Wikipedia purposes. Deletion of sourced text is considered vandalism.'' Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Amortias (T)(C) 12:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

SPA/MEATPUPPET
I was entertaining this discussion, but at some point your points ceased being relevant to sourcing—which is provided—but rather attempts to impress personal views into the article. At present, you are operating a single-purpose account, one you readily admitted to originally creating as a meatpuppet. Further, you claim to have been a prior editor without disclosing said former account, raising the potential of sockpuppetry (a problem you seem familiar with due to encounters with BIJ last year). As such, I am inclined to dismiss your tendentious arguments on the article talk page. Please seek to remedy at least the prior account disclosure on your user page, as being an SPA editor is not an inherently bad thing for non-controversial edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

This conversation is a formality to ensure rapid resolution of our dispute and carries no potential disciplinary consequences for you. Your comments would be appreciated and could enable a speedier close that allows us to focus our edits in more productive and cooperative ways. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a courtesy notification following the closure of the DRN due to no comment. You are welcome to reopen discussion any time on the article talk page; I'll try to keep an eye on it in case you want to discuss further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Reminder: discussion notification
Just a final heads up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to continue working on the article. If you revert without responding here, an ANI for disruptive editing may be the next step. The discussion is still open and you are welcome to present material as you encounter it or feel interested in discussing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeking administrator intervention, accusations of vandalism
Re your edit comment on this edit: "(Dubious vague sources . None of them explicitly back the edits. Edits are mostly two months old and come from amateur editors and IP edits. Refer talk page. Administrator Intervention needed.)"

And re your edit comment on this edit: "(Extreme vandalisation by user Pbritti. Including wordings without source or reference . Adminstrators intervetion necessary.)"


 * If you need admin intervention you will not get it by saying that in an edit comment. You need to speak to an individual administrator or file a request at Administrators Noticeboard Incidents after carefully reading and following the instructions on that noticeboard.


 * Threatening administrator intervention can be seen as an intimidation tactic and an attempt at improper page ownership. If you think admin help is needed either go ahead and ask for it or forget about it and don't talk about it, but don't just threaten it by word or implication.


 * Vandalism is very specifically defined here, see the lists of what is and what is not vandalism listed in that policy. Accusing a person of vandalism when it does not fit into that definition can itself cause you to be blocked or banned. Be very careful before accusing an editor of vandalism. Most ordinary editing and editing disputes are not vandalism.

Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)