User talk:Tharian7

Hello, Tharian7, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Sorry!
I tend to stay out of such discussions where I have no expertise in the article's content. I do not want to give a viewpoint that is not acceptable for the situation at hand. Red Director (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
for the article and for making the point at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion that the AfD had not been listed. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2020
Your recent editing history at Saint Thomas Protestants shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.AnupamTalk 07:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is completely unwarranted and baseless. You are the one who violated process in the first place, by moving the page without a formal move request. Your changes are also objectionable and this warning should be in your talk page. I am not interested in playing that game. Please follow process to achieve consensus for the page move and addition of content.--Tharian7 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tharian7, I properly used the talk page and explained my edits there. On the other hand, you resorted to reverting me, as well as referenced information about the Church of South India that I added to the lede of the article. Please be careful not to remove well-sourced information from the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 07:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This too is unwarranted and baseless. Let me repeat, I'm not going to play this game. Your source about World Methodist council member churches does not say a word about Anglican Syrian Christians. Your source does not provide any backing for the change of title of a page about an ethno-religious group or any other changes you made. The baseless changes you added back after I reverted, can be validly reverted even now. However, I'm not going to engage in an edit war. Let's limit the discussion to the article's talk page.--Tharian7 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Saint Thomas Anglicans
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saint Thomas Anglicans you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StraussInTheHouse -- StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Saint Thomas Anglicans
The article Saint Thomas Anglicans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saint Thomas Anglicans for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StraussInTheHouse -- StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidates
I removed your nom as it was incorrectly done. Please follow the steps at FAC-instructions. Also the article needs some fixing up prior to FAC nom. The following citation is malformatted: Zachariah, K.C. (December 2001). "The Syrian christians of Kerala: Demographic and socioeconomic transition in the twentieth century". ResearchGate. pp. 21, 29, 41. Research gate is not the publisher it just hosts the content, the original is here: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/3027#:~:text=The%20twentieth%20century%20has%20witnessed,demographic%20and%20socio%2Deconomic%20status.&text=The%20community%20was%20characterised%20by,12%20children%20per%20married%20woman. (Keep in mind that FA criteria require high-quality reliable sources, which I'm not sure it is). Also I think the lead should be a bit longer to make sure that it meets MOS:LEAD. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Looks like the study in question was originally conducted, and its findings released by the Centre for Development Studies, under the aegis of Kerala Govt. So, I have made the necessary changes to reflect that. Plus, I have added one more reliable source to the demographics section. I will lengthen the lead in the coming days.--Tharian7 (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)