User talk:Jude Didimus

Welcome!

Hello, Jude Didimus!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 07:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, @Jude Didimus: I have noticed you have edited a significant number of articles relating to Syriac Catholicism in India and would just like to thank you for your work. I noticed some of your edits are not quite what Wikipedia standards seek and I would like to offer any help I can provide so that your edits can stay up. Let me know what I can do to help! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? Let me know what you mean by 'not quite what Wikipedia standards seek' Jude Didimus (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits have been reverted for a lack of sources, others for violating WP:MOS guidelines. These are entirely minor, but I think most of the material you have added is of merit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrate with examples. Or all these are mere perspectives! Jude Didimus (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jude Didimus: A few of your edits on Syro-Malabar Church, particularly in the sections on notable members of the church, are some decent examples. In the future, cite your sources. I can help with that if you need it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you mean? I've already fixed it Jude Didimus (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jude Didmus: if you’re referring to your edits on List of Syro-Malabar Catholics, you actually still did not provide citations for your five-plus added names and deleted a cited entry. These are not "perspectives" but minor violations of Wikipedia policy. Please cite your work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need citations. However since there is no conflict of interest, I think it can be tolerated for some time until I can add sufficient citations. Jude Didimus (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how Wikipedia citing works (nor what "conflict of interest" means). One should not add material without citations with the intent of finding them down the road. Please find reliable sources to cite as soon as possible. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may add the cn templates

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1564 establishments in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1564 establishments in India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Catholicos-Patriarch of the East, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: see https://books.google.com/books?id=CnSCAgAAQBAJ page 10 and https://books.google.com/books?id=2b4ADqorY1oC page 65 Jude Didimus (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access any of those sources. Also, the very first reference of the article states the title of the leader is "Patriarch". You have to cite your sources in the article, not in your talk page after people have reverted you. Veverve (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. But you must understand that the correct one is the present one. Even the current churches are using this title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jude Didimus (talk • contribs)

What matters is to have informations reliably established and verifiable, not WP:TRUTH. Veverve (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said I agree Jude Didimus (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Somehow you resemble my very old Wikipedia pal AARYA SAJAYAN and I believe he is back with a new countenance, did I say it right? R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 10:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Outlander07: Sorry. I am new. My interests are different as you can see. Anyway nice to meet you.Jude Didimus (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Anyway, expect you should contribute enough to Wikipedia, welcome aboard. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 15:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022 edit war

hey Jude some of your articles on Cardinal mar george alenchery does'nt seem genuine please do provide the proof for these titles and kindly refer wikipedia as I've mentioned in my chan.ge — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRHmTivl (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janee Peter Jude Didimus (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Qaumrambista per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista. 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 ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 23 May 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).

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

Request reason:

(This is copy of the unban request which I have filed in User talk:Qaumrambista. I am copying that here because this account (Jude Didimus) is my original account. The blocking administrator (RoySmith) erroneously labelled Qaumrambista as the original account.)
I request the admins to reconsider my indefinite block due to the following reasons: * I have not used an alternative account for any illegitimate purposes as mentioned in [1]. # I have not created an illusion of support: I have never involved any one of my accounts in discussions related to another one. # I did not circumvent policies: I have not edited any page where I am restricted in any of my accounts. #I did not use strawman socks: I have not done that. I have never involved an alternative account in any discussions involving one of my accounts. #I did not evade sanctions: I have not used any one of my accounts to evade sanctions. I am binding to that even now while I am blocked. #I did not contribute to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: I have not used more than one accounts to edit simultaneously in an article or in a discussion. Before forming a new account, I may have edited an article with the older one (Jude Didimus), but never in the same section. #Avoiding scrutiny: If I have violated this, it was totally unintentional. I had actually forgotten the password to Jude Didimus that is why I created a new account. #Editing while logged out in order to mislead: I have never intentionally did that. #Misusing a clean start: Actually, I created a new account since I had forgotten the password to my older one. Later I was able to retrieve the password from an alternative browser when I tried to edit Wikimedia commons. * My older account is Jude Didimus and if asked, I promise to edit only with that account in the future. (The blocking administrator erroneously labelled Qaumrambista as the original account.) * On the basis of this and also since I am a new user, I request a relaxation in my block. Atleast a relaxation in the indefinite time period. Jude Didimus (talk) 8:54 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

{{subst:This is already being discussed at User talk:Qaumrambista, so closing this one}} -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 8 June 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.