User talk:Livingbeta

Hello, I have a concern about your recent edit to the "Oriental Orthodox Churches" page regarding the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC). The edit states that MOSC is "not in communion with other Oriental Orthodox churches" based on the 2025 Cairo meeting, presenting the declaration by three churches (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian Apostolic) as definitive. I believe this may violate WP:NPOV , as only three of the six Oriental Orthodox churches made this decision, and MOSC disputes it, arguing a full communion decision is needed Not invited for peace talks. Additionally, the claim that the Eritrean Church’s presence wasn’t necessary misinterprets the 1993 protocol (), which establishes autocephaly, not subordination.

@Livingbeta Sodacyanide (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

i have added the reference for the protocol with regards to the Eritrean church and the Coptic church and the meeting was a gathering of the apostolic see in middle east , also while writing articles it is of utmost importance to understand definitions from the [respective of the article, autocephaly has varying meanings in oriental, eastern and catholic churches, also the six churches that you mention , please do state that six churches as three of them partook in it and the MOSC was never part of the oriental meetings or gatherings that happen time to time , the only case of problem is the Ethiopian church for which i have also added information regarding their displeasure. lease read the declaration it does invite the the MOSC for peace talks, if any objections persists please add reliable sources as stated in the Wikipedia's policy, staying neutral is by adding sources from both the sides and not adding just one source for all those involved and remove key paras Livingbeta (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to address your claim that MOSC "was never part of the Oriental meetings or gatherings that happen time to time." This statement is not accurate, as MOSC has a well-documented history of participation in significant Oriental Orthodox gatherings. For instance, MOSC was represented by Catholicos Geevarghese II at the 1965 Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches in Addis Ababa, a landmark summit of all OO churches that reaffirmed their unity and coordinated ecumenical efforts. Additionally, MOSC attended the 1989 Amba Bishoy Monastery meeting in Egypt, where the OO churches discussed Christological unity and pastoral cooperation. MOSC also participated in the 1990 Chambésy Agreement in Switzerland, a key EO-OO dialogue where all OO churches, including MOSC, were represented to affirm a shared Christological understanding. Furthermore, MOSC took part in the 2012 International Joint Commission Meeting in Addis Ababa, where Metropolitan Dr. Gabriel Mar Gregorios represented the church in dialogues with the Catholic Church, reinforcing OO unity. These events clearly demonstrate MOSC’s active role in Oriental Orthodox gatherings, contrary to the claim of non-participation. To maintain WP:NPOV, I suggest we reflect this historical involvement

@Livingbeta Sodacyanide (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

dear user you do understand that in all those years the MOSC church was addressed as the Syriac orthodox church in India and even in the Addis Ababa conference statements there referred as the Syrian orthodox church in India (MOSC)

they aren't invited in any modern oriental only gatherings and only take part as representatives in Catholic and Anglican dialogues and generally has not signed any ecumenical declarations like the Armenians Coptic and the Syriac churches have that is of any importance, also the recent declarations only furthers my argument as it doesn't excommunicate the MOSC rather just recognize the MOSC as sectarian which they are according to those who signed the declarations Livingbeta (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Livingbeta

You said the MOSC was called the "Syriac Orthodox Church in India (MOSC)" at the 1965 conference, but that’s not accurate. Historical records, like those in ecumenical reports, show the MOSC was there as a separate, autocephalous entity, represented by Catholicos Baselios Augen I, who led the MOSC from 1964 to 1975. The MOSC has been independent since the 1912 establishment of the Catholicosate, backed by its 1934 constitution and the 1958 Supreme Court of India ruling. The Syriac Orthodox Church was represented by Patriarch Ignatius Jacob III, and the "Syriac Orthodox Church in India" you mentioned is likely the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (JSCC), which falls under the Syriac Patriarchate due to the schism over autonomy.  You claimed the MOSC isn’t invited to modern OO-only gatherings and only takes part in Catholic and Anglican dialogues. That’s not entirely true. The MOSC participated in the 2012 International Joint Commission Meeting in Addis Ababa as an "OO representative" in Catholic-OO dialogues, showing it’s still engaged as part of the communion. You didn’t specify which modern OO-only gatherings the MOSC was excluded from can you give examples? The schism with the JSCC explains some differences in engagement, since the JSCC is represented through the Syriac Orthodox Church, but the MOSC operates independently as an autocephalous church.  You also said the MOSC hasn’t signed significant ecumenical declarations like the Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac churches. That’s incorrect. The MOSC was a signatory to the 1990 Chambésy Agreement, a major Eastern Orthodox-OO dialogue. That’s a pretty significant declaration, so your point doesn’t hold up.  On the 2025 Cairo declaration you’re right that it calls the MOSC a "separated faction," but it’s only signed by three of the six OO churches (Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian-Cilicia). The Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Etchmiadzin Armenian churches haven’t endorsed it, and there’s no explicit statement from the entire OO communion saying the MOSC is out. So why did you remove the MOSC from the OO churches list completely? I suggest you may wait till such statement is clearly stated. Sodacyanide (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Pbritti. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Template:Christianity in India sidebar seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Multiple sources characterize the MOSC as part of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, even if its status is challenged by individual constituent jurisdictions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey ,I understand your concerns but my recent edits are aimed to incorporate crucial historical information, including recent developments, and I provided updated references from official church and non church sources too. I noticed that the reverted version utilizes older, outdated information, especially regarding the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church's (MOSC) recognition, which was a very recent change. Many websites may not yet reflect this. Regarding the "Christianity in India" sidebar template, I believe moving the MOSC to the "independent churches" section was accurate based on the available sources. If this is incorrect, please elaborate with supporting documentation. Furthermore, I included significant historical details, such as the Armenian Church's acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, and rephrased existing paragraphs for clarity, relying on the provided sources. Given the lack of valid, updated sources (as of 2025) to justify the previous reversion, I will be reverting back to my earlier edit. Livingbeta (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS and other relevant policies, guidelines, and best practices like WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, the burden is on your to justify your changes through discussion. Based on the same sources that you have utilized, I have come to the conclusion that there is not a sufficient basis to suddenly reclassify the MOSC as an independent Oriental Orthodox church. The recent develops amount to nothing significant (yet) compared to the other developments of the long-running MOSC–Jacobite dispute. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Livingbeta! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Oriental Orthodox Churches several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

~ Pbritti (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There are a plethora of subjects relating to Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity in general, which have been primary targets according to your contributions. Please, do not create an edit war with others, as may be occurring by the constant disputes and lack of consensus. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Saying are you lazy is so beyond appropriate as to raise questions about whether you should participate on Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oriental Orthodox churches in India. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Pbritti (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, this has gone on for far too long... TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Your contributions to several Oriental Orthodox-related articles, as attested to also on this talk page, are continuing to cause multiple issues. Continued edit disputes and potential edit wars as well, will lead to a final notice by administrators on the Administrator's Noticeboards. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen I urge you to immediately withdraw your warnings as your warnings are just unwarranted. You give me blatant warnings after reverting all my edits in articles & do it without any proper discussion or justification, all you say in edit summaries is advocacy and NPOV, as if to make it look that my edits were wrong. Not sure from when the Syriac Orthodox church was classified as an Oriental Orthodox denomination and not a church, you ought to give sources for such changes and not revert changes done by other editors without proper explanation and give unjustified warnings. This is not only with regards to the Syriac orthodox article page you have been reverting my edits on other pages swiftly without no discussion on the talk page and your edit summaries giving no explicit reason other than NPOV or advocacy. I see your repeated reversions as if your were tracking my page and your warnings without any reason as just a tool of character assassination of my use profile. Failing to substantiate this problem with valid justifications based on the edits you have made will force me to bring you to the administrators notice board. Livingbeta (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Livingbeta, no. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Livingbeta! Your additions to Yejong of Goryeo 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) 12:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:02, 15 June 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.

asilvering (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)