Vagab, I am angry and upset. I won't do anything tonight, because acting in anger is usually a bad idea. But I beg you to consider my points re adding a picture of the purported Indus Valley sari and a quote from the Tamil epic. Zora 3 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)

Vagab, I looked at the picture of the Indus Valley statue. All we see of it is the cloth draped over the shoulder. Now compare the clothing shown in this picture of a statue of Gudea, a Mesopotamian ruler, available right here on Wikipedia. That looks even more like a sari -- or a Buddhist monk's robe. Can you really say that Gudea is wearing a sari? That's why I'm dubious of attempts to trace saris back to the Indus Valley civilization -- particularily as sourcing things to the Indus is an Indian nationalist or Hindutva preoccupation.

I would of course agree that since humans started wearing clothing, they wore unstitched cloth draped in various ways. I'm sure that that goes back to the dawn of Indian/Mesopotamian/Persian/Egyptian history. The problem is defining when an unstitched cloth becomes a sari. I'd say it's probably length, and then either the dhoti/fishtail sari tuck, between the legs, or the pallu. But definitions are always a matter for argument. Perhaps we could put THAT in the article?

As to safety pins and saris -- see this discussion, by real women who wear real saris: [1].

I must ask -- are you female? Do you buy saris? Wear saris? Somehow I get a feeling from your contributions that you're male, but I could be wrong. Zora 3 July 2005 21:39 (UTC) (a female)

Sorry, I did not realise the user was vandalising, but now I look at it, I can see that they were malicious edits. Thanks for pointing that out to me, as I did not spot that! :) -- Stwalkerster talk 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will have a look, cheers for the tip. Trips (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am familiar with the history of the article St. Thomas Christian tradition. But it is a subsection, not a stand-alone article. A single stand-alone article is needed so all churches can use it. It probably needs to be broken off and merged with the History of the Saint Thomas Christians to form an integral history. The tradition article itself cannot be used as a history since it contains details about the modern churches.

Right now there are too many articles on Saint Thomas Christian history, all of them quite different, contradictory and sometimes not believable - DNA claims of Jewish ancestry, claims to be related to Brahmins, etc. This sort of material can be reported but should include scholarly criticism if available, to ensure objectivity.

I did not "author" the article, per se. I copied and merged the most likely appearing information and best referenced (best linked) material from the history subsections of the articles on five of the seven (or ten?) churches and merged it. The material there is probably as old as the material in St. Thomas Christian tradition.

I do not have a pov and welcome scholarly, objective changes to the article and even a name change, if needed and useful.Student7 (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please WP:AGF and do not WP:ATTACK edits you do not agree with. It is standard to give reasons for your edits in the edit summary. Student7 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please give logical reasons in the edit summary. Not that you are mad at the previous editor or disagree with him. That is no help. Try to argue the material instead of expressing your frustration. We are frustrated too since we have absolutely no idea why you are making any change and have to guess from the context! Student7 (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

==Hey, Vagab==

Dear, vagab, i would like to thank you for your support......

by, Marxist101(STEVE)

P.S , Are you from Kerala? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marixist101 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]