User talk:Pamparam

Leave a message

Malakaran history[edit]

I noticed your changes to various histories which are all shared by Saint Thomas Christians. Why not place them into the shared history until 1652: History of the Saint Thomas Christians, a summary into the template: Template:Indian Christian History 52-1653. Then we could put these into all 7 churches for the first 1652 years since they all have the same history but 5 people writing five histories (some share).

Right now the histories are all crazy. We get newbies every week that can usually be reverted. Then every few months, we get someone new to Wikipedia who changes a lot of material in one of the histories. It is very frustrating and very impermanent since the next person that comes along will change everything you did once you move on. With a common history, this would be unlikely.

Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. It is going to be really difficult merely getting eight churches to share a single history. Other articles, listing of metropolitans, etc. are side issues. I recommend you treat those separately.

It would be more credible to other editors if you use Wikipedia conventions in links. Use the internal link Syrian Malabar Nasrani not an external reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Malabar_Nasrani. Student7 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had another idea. Instead of presenting your suggestions on Talk:Syrian Malabar Nasrani where only a few editors are looking, move it instead to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity. It will be harder for them to be parochial in their approach and, if they later object, we can say that agreement was reached and they "should" follow it. Right now, agreement reached under one article's discussion, only applies to that article!

You might want to wait a bit until you have been involved in an exchange of ideas and see what the other objections are. So far, I don't see any answers except mine, to your proposals. You also need to be a bit more familiar with Wikipedia standards and policies. For example, linking to internal articles. I suggest you change your current comments to reflect internal links in order to be more credible. Student7 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, oh, I almost forgot. The WikiProject page is where we can discuss WP:RELY sources for Indian Christian history. Some are clearly nonsense. Once we dispose of them here, we may be able to put them on a blacklist so no one can use them, but in any event, we will know that they shouldn't be used and can erase material that is supported by them.

This should be done (unfortunately) on a case by case basis with a separate subtitle in a discussion about why the material is worthless. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think we need to wait now for comments on the WikiProject page. If you don't see any within a day or so, I would suggest "inviting" others to comment, obviously ones that seem to be the most respected contributors to the individual articles. Thanks for your efforts! Student7 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Thevarparampil Kunjachan"[edit]

A page you created, Thevarparampil Kunjachan, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Syro Malabar Church Religious Congregations[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Syro Malabar Church Religious Congregations, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.kcbcsite.com/kcbc_congregations.htm. As a copyright violation, Syro Malabar Church Religious Congregations appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Syro Malabar Church Religious Congregations has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Syro Malabar Church Religious Congregations and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Syro Malabar Church Religious Congregations with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Syro Malabar Church Religious Congregations.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hairhorn (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember rightly, the text above the list was a copyright violation as well — of course a simple alphabetical list can't be copyrighted, but the rest of the text can be. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean about Tyler? If the text is a problem, it needs to be deleted, and without the text, there would be no reason to keep the list. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By now, I'm a bit confused over the situation, so WP:DR might be a good idea. Feel free to quote me as saying that I'm not aware that a DR is going to happen. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the list here. When you're done with the list, if you want to get rid of the page, simply place {{db-u1}} on it. I've looked over the text, by the way, and it copies extensively from the cited source, so it really is a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New history of St. Thomas Catholics[edit]

Was out of the country for awhile. Just got your note. I was hoping to see a common history with topics (as suggested by you): Rough Chronology (not quite sure what that means!) Early traditions with the Apostle St. Thomas Early East Syriac Period (I'm not really sure how firm that connection was. Clearly St. Thomas Christian were visited periodically, but how much did Syrians influence Indian Christianity?) Medieval period Early Bishops Arrival of Portuguese Division

It would be nice if Neudvelmatthew (wrong spelling) kind of supported this, but I doubt that he will. But at least you can ask him what he thinks, rather than asking him for support, per se.

I think the common history ends at Coonan Cross or shortly thereafter. Common histories still continue, but with fewer churches.

Coming up with a new "common" name is a serious problem. Almost ought to be completely renamed like "Common history of Keralan Christians" or somesuch.

I am in favor of anything with at least one good reference per paragraph, with fairly short paragraphs. I would not object to one reference per sentence even if the reference is a duplicate!

I would suggest developing it in a sandbox and letting me and Neudelmatthew look at it (without changing it), before trying to install it. We can talk about substituting it first.

It would be better but much harder, probably impossible, to get all church editors to accept this new version prior to trying to substitute it for the current version. The nice thing about them looking at a sandbox version is that they might not feel quite so threatened as just boldly substituting and getting into a row.

How does that sound? Student7 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read user:Neduvelilmathew? I have no way of verifying these claims but they have a ring of truth. While I have not completely agreed with all his changes to articles, I have not had cause to revert any of them.

It is highly unlikely that we can achieve anything resembling a consensus without his consent, if not wholehearted approval. You might consider revising your remarks directed at him. Student7 (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your suggestion of a "sentence by sentence" analysis is correct. I would hope this might lead to recognition of sources which are more valid than others. I suspect that some of the texts are accurate when they report events that are recent to the writer, but maybe not accurate at all when reporting distant facts which became legend long before they wrote. We will see!

The other question I have is venue. We either need to move to the Indian Christianity Project or put a pointer from there into Nasrani Evolution.jpg talk page. When we get finished, we don't want to have to convince the people that were unaware of the discussion who are currently maintaining one church article only. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blessed Kunjachan.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blessed Kunjachan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vssun (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm 117Avenue. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Banff National Park, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]