Talk:Devasahayam Pillai

message: In Tamil, Bl. Devasahayam's name is pronounced: "teh-vuh-suh-KIE-um".  Why is it an "h" sound, "rather than "k"?Mwidunn (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: The Blessed's Name?

message: its been contributed by an annonymous user on another page . With some work it can be made an historical article. I recommend leaving it until someone comes along to clean it up, rather than deleting it. Btw it certainly isnt patent nonsense -- PlaneMad|YakYak 08:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I am deprodding for now. Thorough cleanup and investigation is needed, but a skim-through indicates that the page seeks to relate an incident in good faith. Let me work on it and see what it is about. ImpuMozhi 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed all subpages of cs.nyu.edu/kandathi/ () listed as source. The page is a userpage of someone specialized in computation and mathematical logic. such a person's is in no way qualified to be sourced here. Arjuncodename024 16:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source removed 

message: This newspaper article refers to "Muttidichan Parai near Kumarakovil, where there is a memorial to a martyr, Devasahayam Pillai". Is this another name for a place mentioned in the encyclopedia article, or should it be added? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Places of interest

message: How writing the truth, without fear of any vested interest group, can invoke the provisions of POV? Refer RW on 06 September 2011 of Canonization efforts by contributor Sitush. Isn't it against NPOV and truth? -Kumaripriya (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be honest, "vehemently refutes all these vainglorious interpretations" is in no way an objective or NPOV expression. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unofortunately, but as so often with your edits, your choice of source is questionable (140 years old) and your choice of language is appalling ("vainglorious", "vehemently" etc). You have been warned, taken to WP:ANI and even blocked for this type of contribution before now. I only wish that I or someone else could get the message of WP:NPOV etc across to you in a manner which you can understand. What bit of it are you having difficulties with (apart from the word "neutral", obviously)? - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV & Truth

message: I've tagged this article wrt unreliable sources - something that I haven't done in my previous 70-odd thousand edits. Too many of the sources appear to be from minor publishers and to have connections to the church. It is entirely possible that they are not presenting an accurate account. We need sources that are independent of the church and of the devotees. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As only church sources have made efforts to maintain records of this person's life, we are not in that ideal situation. The only records are the church ones, which may be biased. In this situation, the potential bias should be clearly disclosed. Therefore, I have reinstated the "according to Catholic sources" heading which was agreed above as WP:NPOV in 2009 (as subsequently amended). – Fayenatic London 14:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources 

message: SITUSH seems to be doing changes to this article which appear to me as strongly biased. I had included sources attesting to the martyrdom of Devasahayam on account of his religious faith. SITUSH has removed that without even mentioning why he wanted it removed. If he thinks that the source is unreliable he should SHOW with other sources why the earliest sources are unreliable. Instead, he has REMOVED the text and details I entered, and THEN has tagged "unreliable". So, what is unreliable? Is the article as it stands now is unreliable? Why does SITUSH question the ENTIRE article? Again, he has removed the dates I entered after A. Sridharanan. I wanted to show that Sridharan's view was expressed some three hundred years AFTER Devasahayam Pillai's death, whereas the sources I had adduced go back to the time of the martyr. Again, SITUSH has redone the details of Devasahayam, like making his birth year 1713 instead of 1712, and inserting "Palace Soldier" where as Devasahayam was not a soldier but an OFFICIAL at Martanda Varma's court.
Considering all of the above, I conclude that the action of may SITUSH amount to vandalism, calling for appropriate action in the interest of neutrality and objectivity of Wikipedia Thanks.--பவுல்-Paul (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism suspected

message: Not only Sitush, but also so many VANDALS VERY MUCH ACTIVE IN THIS PAGE out to corrupt the facts. Mostly they are Devasahayam Pillai's opponent religious fanatics (in disguise) with hidden radical agendas/assignments here. They should be properly handled and disciplined if Indian Christian pages in Wikipedia needs any credibility. For example: See the links connected for 'External Links' and everyone wonders here why no disciplinary action being initiated against such vandals!--Kumaripriya (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Confirmed

message: Substituted at 13:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Devasahayam Pillai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511062506/http://www.kottardiocese.org/subpage%20new/history.html to http://www.kottardiocese.org/subpage%20new/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301220721/http://cs.nyu.edu/kandathi/kandathil.html to http://cs.nyu.edu/kandathi/kandathil.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article1364366.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811215443/http://cs.nyu.edu/kandathi/devasahayam.html to http://cs.nyu.edu/kandathi/devasahayam.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From this source - https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2021-11/india-catholic-church-canonization-devasahayam-may-22-2022.html , lazarus means 'God has helped"(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lazarus) in english. In sanskrit, deva means "god"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%B4%A6%E0%B5%88%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%82) and sahayam means "help" Could this be put in first section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.47.12 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devasahayam is Lazarus in the local language 

message: He is st.devasahayam not st.deva sahaya pillai 2405:201:E005:C8B1:359C:24B4:1642:6242 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to call him