Jump to content

Talk:Mariam Vattalil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 28 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 6 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Saints}}, {{WikiProject Catholicism}}, {{WikiProject India}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Women in Religion}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Untitled

[edit]

Made improvements,Extended article, Neutrality ensured

I have made changes to this article which i believe has brought neutrality to it.I request the authors of this article to please check them and give your feed back on my talk page,--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC) pleases inform me if there is any disagreement or dispute or any mistake regarding my edits.I would like to sincerely involve in the development of this article. --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all of the edits by Johnyjohny294 were copy-pastes from material subject to copyright. This is not permitted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Message me your opinion
[edit]

I would like to know what the authors and developers of this article feel about my neutrality improvements of this article.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why reliable preferred for deletion,not unreliable

[edit]

BEFORE NEGOTIATING DELETION OF this article

you should check UNRELIABLE ARTICLES LIKE Thoma of Villarvattom,which looks funny and which doesnot even exist.i would call it an article on people who never even exist.i would call Thoma of Villarvattom, a ghost article " you have to first negotiate deletion of ghost articles about people whose existence has never happened or imagined by certain people." Users of wikipedia should not show interest in deleting reliable articles --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i can point out thousands of article like this--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and moreover

L'Osservatore Romano online is not the place to search for list of servants of god.for that you have to contact vatican tribunals directly or syro malabar church. i can give you certain indian newspapers links for the same God’s own saints

i dont know whether this will satisfy you

it would be better if somebody remove that deletion tags and for your information i subscribe vatican newspapers. --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]