User talk:Teutonick

Ahatallah I have seen that, you have made many contributions to Indian churches in wiki. Would you please go through the article Ahatallah and provide your comments... I have placed a POV. Most of the article is taken from one source, which noone in India talks about. Teutonick (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Seen the page some months back. Was unable to comment on the article, not having time nor energy to waste. Also had read the book of Neill an year back, threw it, after going through some pages. An anbolute ignorant piece of work. You may contact User:Neduvelilmathew or User:Mathenkozhencherry on this. I am afraid, I would be able to join. But please do not hesitate to contact me if need be. Shlomo.Fyodor7 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Ahatallah appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Claritas § 16:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you please tell me what is that non neutral point of view? Teutonick (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This sentence "Apparently, he was an Antiochean Patriarch known as Mar Ignatius Hidayat Allah in Syria." He claimed to be that, but that's rather unlikely to be true. Claritas §  16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Their are several versions to the story. No one exactly knows which is true. The problem with the entire article is, it relies too much on one source( a 20th century) about a person whose whereabouts are not known and who lived in the 16th century. Their are numerous book written on Indian christianity, but noone of them have all these info, which the author Neill is quoting. He claims, Ahathullah was send by the pope, even catholic enclyclopedia dosent say so. A POV, for neutrality should be added for this article. See thr talk pages. Teutonick (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The present article is not at all in a neutral point of view. This is meere copying from one source and adding in wikipedia.Teutonick (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Teutonick, please also be aware of our CANVASSING guidelines. These state that when telling other editors of a discussion, you should not pre-select editors based on their views, and your messages to them should be worded neutrally. Doing otherwise can be taken as an attempt to influence the outcome of the discussion in your favor. You appear to be selecting editors you think will agree with you, and your messages to Tinucherian were not neutrally worded. Additionally, your ad hominem comments about me - calling me a "Catholic partisan" and a vandal, are not appropriate. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I selcted all the kerala christians wikipedians whom ,i found active. I havec checked all your activities on wiki, and you have no right to put the blame on anyone. What your are doing is polishing the history of catholic church and maligning all the small churches. You are only corrupting wikipedia, and not not improving in any ways. First, come of narrow mindedness and learn to be neutral. Your sources are catholic and those that side catholic theories. No wonder anyone calls you a fanatic. Teutonick (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)