User talk:Ms Sarah Welch/Archive 5

Four truths -DRN
See. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel sorry for our DRN folks!, What walls of text and trouble we are pulling them into? Will someone at DRN try? Time will tell, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * At least, we'll get a break: "In the meanwhile, please do not edit the article in concern and stop all talks on the talk page."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Is that the DRN guideline? even your or my or anyone else's talk page? or just the talk page of the Four Noble Truths article, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See diff. I guess it's part of their procedure.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on Mahavira article these days. Sent you an email on this and a note on nirvana in Jainism, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * and Sarah: will be happy to explain to both of you. Normally, DRN is approached when talk page discussions fail to yield a consensus. Hence, it is necessary not to continue discussion related to the subject anywhere except the DRN page/DRN talk page. You may want to read the rules I linked in my note at the DRN. It could be said to be a part of the procedure. I've already opened the case and am waiting for you and the other editor involved to file their opening statements in the sub sections called "Summary of dispute by XYZ". If you don't do so in a stipulated time, it'll be considered that you're not interested in the case and it could be closed due to lack of participation. Any further discussion should take place on the DRN talk page as being a volunteer I'm not allowed to engage with disputants outside the DRN. I, however, thought this was necessary as you had not filled your summary statement yet and seemed to be interested in participating. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please give Robert Walker some time to post his concern(s). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear; thanks (agree with MSW). Let's continue at the DRN-page.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.

The thread is here. Thanks. Jenishc (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you expand on something you said?
Hi Ms Sarah Welch. You said "As you probably know, from wikipedia's perspective your or any individual editor's personal opinions do not matter" on Talk:Devanagari. In the context in which you said that, it wasn't referring to an opinion but a non-RS-supported argument. So I'm wondering if you could clarify, whether you meant for that to apply for article content, or for discussion on the talk namespace? If it's meant for discussion on the talk namespace, could you provide a quote to substantiate that from a WP policy/guideline page? Thanks. ʙʌ sʌwʌʟʌ  тʌʟк  05:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see the talk page of the article. Feel free to ask clarifying questions there, given the context of our discussion is there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder on 'Metta' topic
Hi Sarah,

Please refer to the Talk page on Metta. You rolled back a small change of mine on reason of 'must stick to the sources' but according to my reading of the lemma there are no sources given at all for the current statement! Better continue discussion there, if no activity on this from you within 48 hours I'll reinstate 'my' version of facts in that lemma until we've sorted it out fully;-) Erikdr (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will reply on the article talk page within 48 hours. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong ping, sorry! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Bhagavata Mela
Hi Ms Sarah Welch, regarding the bhagavata mela page, thank you for the resources you posted on my talk page for editing here. Regarding my actual edits, I did not remove any of the existing citations or sources and in fact added a couple and edited the section on history to better reflect factual accuracy regarding early modern Hindu and Muslim states and their patronage for precursor forms as well as some of the migration details. Also, the article didn't have any section separations, making it difficult to read, hence my addition. I will look more into editing etiquette. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psr106 (talk • contribs)


 * I am delighted that you will review the editing guidelines. Please note that "factual accuracy" should be based on the published reliable sources, not based on your own personal opinions / wisdoms / prejudices, nor based on blogs / websites / other unreliable WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. Please do not remove what the sources are stating even if you personally disagree with that view. While this general overview discussion on my talk pahe is fine, the best place to discuss a particular article is its talk page (e.g. Talk:Bhagavata Mela). Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

New article
Hi Sarah, Can you please develop Kundalini and Chakra article, both these articles are related to yoga, tantra and spirituality. Also can you check Hanuman article is it ok or not, because i'm not so sure about it. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks. My desk is piled up with books on Jainism, and there are a few important wikipedia articles in that space that are my focus these days. I haven't reviewed Hanuman, but it is on my to-do list for this summer. I may be able to review-revise it quicker, if others and you kept a watch on articles already developed or in decent shape, undid vandalism such as removal of reliable sources, removal of sourced content and insertion of unsourced content. Would you or other wiki volunteers you know be willing to devote some time to watch and undo wikipedia vandalism?, (without edit warring past 2RR per 24 hours on any article). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll try to stop such vandalism from my part but its difficult to monitor so many articles, I know you've worked extremely hard on developing such articles, my advice to u once an article has been developed notify an admin and make it indefinite semi-protection immediately. In that way you can limit the level of vandalism otherwise how long can u monitor such acts when there are so many articles in Wiki. Also pls don't forget to develop Kundalini and Chakra article these two are very important articles. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the core values of wikipedia is "anyone is free to edit". Our assumption is that there are more good people in our world wanting to help, than those determined to disrupt. It is better to welcome freedom and participation, while suffering a bit and taking corrective actions. Semi-protection is only proper when there is evidence of repetitive disruption. The way to monitor wikipedia articles is as follows: [1] go to the article page that interests you, [2] find the empty star at the top near "Search Wikipedia box" and View history tab, [3] click the star, it will turn blue as it is added to your watch list, [4] repeat 1-3 for more articles, [5] click on Watchlist at the very top near the Log out link. You should see list of articles that have recent changes. You then click on edit diffs and check each recent change, verify which changes make sense, which are vandalism/ testing/ disruption. Undo those that disrupt the article, but never edit war (bring persistent disrupters to admin attention instead). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Bengali calendar in new clothes
The saga continues: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Akbarian Bengali calendar
 * Astronomy in medieval Islamic world.


 * Interesting. I wasn't aware. It is a POVFORK, a copy of an old version of Bengali Calendar copy-pasted into a new article. By a brand new account! ... of same article / user(s) in new clothes.
 * FWIW, I had filed an SPI a while ago on Akib.H, but had forgot to add the CU request. Admin Ivanvector noted, fixed my mistake, and CU/SPI process then confirmed a sock-farm. Another SPI may be on order here, the Orient Bengal user account is new, knows a lot to be edit warring with you (hardly anything to do with astronomy, newspaper sources, but there it goes!)? See History of calendars too. All of this looks like troubling version of the same saga indeed, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, an SPI would be good if you can figure out the master. The POV pushing on all calendar articles in the user's edit history is quite extreme. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, these kind of sources represent historically illiterate, secularist POV-pushing. There was nothing "secular" about Akbar's calendar. Akbar was rebelling against the Par-Arabism of the Muslim orthodoxy and adopting the Persian systems. (Recall that he himself was a Persian speaker, and the Mughals regarded themselves as part of the Persianate culture.) The Safavids had already dumped the Hijri calendar and adopted a solar calendar. Akbar did the same. There were no "Indian or Hindu elements" in his calendar. Rather there were "Zoroastrian elements". Here are some proper historical sources. As far as Bengalis are concerned, my guess is that they continued to use their traditional calendars (Hindu luni-solar calendar for festivals, civil solar calendar, Muslim lunar calendar). When Akbar ditched the Muslim lunar calendar, the Muslims of Bengal had no reason to stick to it and they switched over to their civil solar calendar (not Akbar's calendar). There was no change for the Hindus who continued to use the Hindu luni-solar calendar and the civil solar calendar. The only change appears to be for the era, which is not very important to Hindus anyway. Hindus use named years within 60-year cylces counted from the beginning of the Kali Yuga. So, changing the era is not a big deal for the Hindus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing here is that the Persians, being almost 100% Muslim, could go back to their pre-Islamic ways and not worry about any backlash. The Indian Muslims, on the other hand, were heavily dependent on their Ulama for preserving their power structure. So, using any "Hindu elements" was an anathema to them. On the other hand, they could use Persian Zoroastrian elements and pass off as being "Islamic". This is one bit that our POV pusher got right. Anything Persian can pass off as being "Islamic" even if it really isn't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Those indeed are my general impressions as well. Our challenge is how to present all this with balance and per WP:V, given these Bangladeshi newspaper and related sources. I am still uncomfortable with POVFORK articles that the newly blocked "Orient Bengal" sock account created. A merged article with NPOV, may be better. What you explain so well, needs to be in there. FWIW, my desk is too loaded with Jainism manuscripts and texts these days (another set of articles with high OR and POV-pushing in parts), so in the interim, I can only help with fire fighting in the Bangladeshi/Bengali calendars-related article(s). Please revise those calendar articles with the above. I will help out when appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think he created any more articles. I went though his edit history and reverted all the edits that were stil live. I could have missed some because I didn't check the individual article histories.
 * I think there is value in keeping the Bangladeshi calendar article separate because it is indeed a modern one, and we will limit the Bangladeshi POV-pushing to this article instead of messing with the Bengali calendars article. On the other hand, I don't think the discussion of Tarikh-i Ilahi belongs here. We need a separate article on the Tarikh-i Ilahi calendar, where the history can be properly described. I will just replace the historically inaccurate content with something decent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this applies, but CSD A10 can be used to delete articles that duplicate existing ones. --regentspark (comment) 15:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

, The Akbarian Bengali Calendar redirect should be considered for a delete, unless someone can find a source (I tried yesterday, wasn't able to). I like the Tarik-i Ilahi article idea of Kautilya3, since there are many RS on it. Perhaps we could link it and leave a summary style section in Bangladeshi calendar and other articles if appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it for speedy deletion. It turns out that the Bengali calendars have nothing to do with Tarikh-i Ilahi, but they are based on Fasli era, which is just an era, not a full calendar. It is still in use in many parts of India. I am going to make some edits elimianting all POVs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible copy-vio photos
Hi, Recently, updated images on three articles related to Hinduism (as of now). All these images look like to be copy-vio/downloaded from internet.

I have reverted two edits by the user, and notified him. But I havent done anything about the images that he uploaded, as they are on wikipedia and not on wikicommons.

Would you please take a quick look at the photos, and user's edit history? Thanks a lot. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I did a reverse search, all the images are already available on internet. Copyrighted. But I dont know how to delete these images from wikipedia (i know about commons). — usernamekiran (talk)  19:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I got all the images speedily deleted. I reverted most of his edits, but there are some edits that needs attention. I think you doing it would be better than me. (There are like less than 10 edits which need attention). Thanks a lot. You are very well suited for the task too. It will be appreciated alot if you look at the remaining edits. Thanks :-)  — usernamekiran (talk)   23:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Good work with getting rid of the copyvio images and cleaning up the vandalism. I undid Anmolbhat's religious cosmology edits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. :-) — usernamekiran (talk)  10:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Attention requested on Shiva
Hello,

You attention is request on this edit, regarding Mahamrutyunjaya mantra. Although the mantra mentions "the three eyed one", it is not only about Shiva. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Isaaq genocide
Hi there Ms Sarah Welch, hope all is well. You may not remember this, but earlier in the year you and Cordless Larry have been very helpful on the Isaaq genocide page. I was wondering what your opinion is on how the article has come thus far? I have taken all your comments regarding sources on board and worked back on the article. This was the article as you saw it in January and this is what we have at the moment Isaaq genocide, any comments would be hugely appreciated. Thank you again for your contribution earlier in the year! Kzl55 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A quick read suggests that the article is better, a lot better than before, now that you have added 25+ scholarly publications. There is room for further improvement particularly from the NPOV perspective. On January 22 2017, I had suggested:
 * "One more thing.... do mention "although the Barre government had also targeted other resistance groups and their followers during the period of insurgency" or something equivalent for NPOV. A balanced article would mention at least once, citing source such as Geldenhuys you mention, that clans/groups other than Isaaq were also victims."
 * It seems you missed adding this and similar NPOV content to the article. Please reconsider, add a section on this somewhere towards the end of article, ASAP. Otherwise, the article comes across as POV pushing. Without such NPOV, you are likely to face more edit wars, strange AfD requests and difficult time consuming proceedings.
 * This and other genocide / war topics are difficult, sensitive and challenging for NPOV. They need more tender care in screening sources, careful reading of the context, in what you summarize and how you summarize it. The article also needs some copyediting, and cleanup/tidying up of WP:OVERCITE etc. If you need more help with locating sources, reach out to, others and I. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for getting back! Glad the article is going in the right direction. I have already added reference to Barre's targeting of other groups on the first section titled Genocide:
 * "'Other groups were also targeted by Barre's regime, but according to many observers, including the International Crisis Group, 'no other Somali community faced such sustained and intense state-sponsored violence' as the Isaaq.'"
 * And:
 * "Collective clan-based violence against civilians always represents a violation of human rights. However, when its goal is to exterminate and expel large numbers of people based on their group identity alone, it becomes clan cleansing. No one has suggested this term for the collective brutalization of the people of Mudug. However, for the Northwest [Isaaq], this and even stronger terms (such as genocide) are regularly used. The scale and character of the collective clan-based violence committed against Isaaq civilians – who, although they were not the only civilians brutalized by the government, were especially targeted – suggest that this dimension of state-violence in the Northwest indeed amounts to clan cleansing."


 * If you remember last time one of the reasons given for the AfD nomination was the claim that what the Isaaq have suffered was 'not unique' so I thought these quotes both state that other groups were targeted, and also comment on how their targeting compares to that of the Isaaq. Is that what you meant? Any comment on this would be really appreciated (would love to hear Cordless Larry's thoughts too).
 * With the over-citing I think I was trying to 'protect' the article from vandalism/edit warring by having everything sourced, now that you mention it I can totally see it.
 * And yes, it has been difficult, and it may not look it, but also very laborious. But since we've come thus far, might as well push it further, you never never know, perhaps with the help of yourself, Cordless Larry and others we can get this to be a WP:GOOD article! Regards. Kzl55 (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Consider a separate, dedicated section please. NPOV policy requires that we strive to "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is the "fairly, proportionately" part which needs a bit of attention, and a dedicated section may help. Please think it over, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Added here Isaaq genocide. Any feedback would be appreciate, many thanks once again! Kzl55 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That is wonderful. I will review it shortly, and if appropriate copyedit / add sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I just saw your edit, thank you so much for a great contribution! Really appreciate you taking the time to find additional sources as well. If you have any other comments on where to focus on going forward, do keep them coming please. I am wondering, do you reckon the background section is too long? My thinking was to outline the history of marginalisation that eventually led to the government killing of civilians (like Rwandan genocide), and have actually cut quite a bit out. Also is it important to make a separate section for bibliography? Any other comments on how we can nudge this closer to WP:GOOD would be appreciate it. Thanks again! Kzl55 (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch what this guy is referring is kind of duplicate from Somali Rebellion, these events are already partly mentioned on the Somali Rebellion article along with those of other clans. totally unrelated as they don't mention a "genocide" as the term "genocide", i already stated on Here but rather the events that occurred. if anything it should be considered emerging to that article as you mentioned separate dedicated article for "Isaaq'' (as it already existed on Somali rebellion it may need expansion) you may need to take look if you are interested.Somajeeste (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable. Stop following me around the site. You have already nominated the article for deletion, your whole AfD argument was copied word for word from posts by nominator of the previous AfD and lifted from Talk:Isaaq genocide/Archive 1, let the process take its course and stop the disruption.Kzl55 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please consider updating the Somali Rebellion section per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and linking it to the main Isaaq genocide article. As always, copy and cite some of the scholarly sources there as well, and mention in your edit summary "copying some sources/text from Isaaq genocide: please see its edit history for attributions" (this is needed per our Copyvio / Plag policy, see WP:CWW guidelines). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * will have a read through WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and then update that section. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

, just posted it, many thanks for your help! If you can review the updated section whenever you can it would be very appreciated Somali Rebellion, absolutely no rush! Regards Kzl55 (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I reworded it a bit and added another source. We should also consider strengthening the Majeerateen and Hawiye sections, with sources and sourced content when time permits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Will try to find content to strengthen both sections. I would also like to apologise if my comment in the AfD caused any offence, I can honestly say it was just meant to point out the clear bias I was seeing and possible reasons for it, i.e. sharing the same clan family with perpetrators and possible meat-puppetry. In hindsight I can see discussing the article in relation to WP policy should have been the only appropriate response, and the latter portion was better suited for the SPI investigation. Regards Kzl55 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Information regarding Dyuloka
Hi, i just created the page Dyuloka recently. Do you have any information about or related to this topic ? I don't have much knowledge on Vedic terms, thats why. King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to wikipedia. Dyuloka (द्युलोक) does mean "heavenly, bright, sky world", and it does appear in Vedic text Shatapatha Brahmana verses 16.6.1.8–9 with that meaning. Its root is Dyu (द्यु) which appears in the Rigveda in various mandalas. For example, in hymn 6.51, the 5th verse is "द्यौष्पितः पृथिवि मातरध्रुगग्ने भ्रातर्वसवो....", which roughly translates as "O heaven father, our innocent mother earth, brother agni (fire)....".


 * However, what you state in the newly created article is in some parts not directly supported by what you have cited so far. You are broadly right though. To avoid AfD / diligent editors challenging you or deleting what fails verification, please consider strengthening the sources, and checking that the content is directly supported in the source you cite and the source is WP:RS. Also avoid sources, which make a passing use of the word. Reliable sources that actually discuss the term are far better reference source and useful. To do so, you can find some information here (1+2 columns), here (3rd column) and here (pp. 484-485 is an index to its various uses). If you decide to create more articles, consider this and this as one of your starting points. Welcome again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Krishna : GOCE Review
Hello, Ms Sarah Welch - I have completed the copy-edit of Krishna that you requested. I hope you approve. I will be adding a few questions and concerns here in a few minutes. – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

1) In the second paragraph of the lead you have this sentence:


 * His iconography shows him in different stages of his life, such as an infant eating butter, a young boy playing a flute, a young man with Radha or surrounded by women devotees, or a friendly charioteer giving counsel to Arjuna.

and then a few sentences later, this sentence:


 * They portray him in various perspectives: a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero, and as the Supreme Power.

I wonder whether these sentences are not similar enough that they could be consolidated. If you agree, you'll have to decide the best place to put the new sentence. Alternatively, you could leave off the details that follow "in different stages of his life" so as not to repeat them.


 * I moved the sentence, rather than consolidating them. One context summarize the scope the legends, while the other the iconography. There is value in retaining them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph in Krishna is the following sentence:


 * Based on his name, Krishna is often depicted in idols as black- or blue-skinned.

You'll see that in  edit, I added a hyphen after "black", so that it means "black-[skinned] or blue-skinned". But after I saved my edit, I noticed that in the Krishna section, it says:


 * His iconography typically depicts him as black or dark, reflecting his name, or with blue skin like Vishnu.

This sentence seems to make a distinction between the quality of being black (or dark) – somehow different from being black-skinned – and the characteristic of having blue skin. That's all right, and I realize there may be a reason behind it. Shall I remove the hyphen I had added to the earlier sentence so that the earlier sentence more closely parallels this later sentence?


 * The black-, blue- etc makes more sense. Fixed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC


 * You only need hyphens when it is two adjectives before a noun, or an adjective and a past participle functioning as an adjective: "a black- or blue-skinned man". – Corinne (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

3) In the second paragraph of Krishna, I made a few small edits to improve clarity. Read slowly, everything makes sense until the last part of the last sentence. This paragraph is pretty dense stuff, but expressed clearly, it does progress logically and make sense, but it becomes unclear (to me, anyway) with the second half of this sentence:


 * Other scholars such as Archer state that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily, and that this Krishna may be the same as one found later, such as in the Bhagavad Gita. [italics added by me for emphasis]

If you could somehow add just a bit to make it a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader, I think that would help. In other words, clarify "this Krishna" and "as one found later". (The word "later" is used quite a bit in this paragraph.) No need to make the sentence a lot longer, just clearer.


 * Rewrote it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC


 * Here are the sentences as they are now:


 * Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad may be unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily.


 * The first sentence is still not clear. What follows "Other scholars disagree that" must be something that has just been stated, and that would normally be what one or more scholars have claimed. Thus, the tentative "may be unrelated" is inappropriate. It needs to be a more definite verb, something other scholars have stated is true, or probably true. I suggest something like:


 * Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god...,


 * or, slightly more accurately:


 * Other scholars disagree that the Krishna mentioned along with Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god...


 * (If you prefer the phrase "the Krishna and Devika mentioned in...," you'll have to change "is unrelated" to "are unrelated". Also, since "the later Hindu god" is singular, it is better to use a singular noun before the verb: "the Krishna...is unrelated to the later Hindu god".)


 * Also, the second sentence could be smoothed out a bit. I think "of Krishna and Devika" can be left out. If you add "Upanishad" before "verse", it will be clear that the two names are the two names mentioned in the previous sentence.


 * For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names appearing in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily.


 * or:


 * For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both the two names appearing together in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily. – Corinne (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't know if you saw the above suggestion for further revision. – Corinne (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {ping|Corinne}} I split that sentence into two and changed it to, "Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad may be unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily." Please feel free to reword further to improve it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC

I know. I had copied your new sentences, above, for easy reference, and added further comments and suggestions. If you have no objection to the following revised sentences (indicated separately, just above), I'll make the changes:


 * Other scholars disagree that the Krishna mentioned along with Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of the two names appearing together in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily. – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My bad and a big "oops" on my part! sorry, I missed it two times! Yes, please, your comment makes sense. Please change it. Thanks for following up and pardon my oops!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC

4) More in a few minutes. – Corinne (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Corinne: you are awesome! I will work on these this week. Please keep the comments coming, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, it wasn't a few minutes. I got distracted by television. Here are a few more:

4) At the beginning of the Krishna section, you have these sentences:


 * Around 180 BCE the Indo-Greek king Agathocles issued some coinage bearing images of deities that are now interpreted as being related to Vaisnava imagery in India. The divinities displayed on the coins are interpreted as being related to Vishnu's avatars Balarama-Sankarshana with attributes consisting of the Gada mace and the plow, and Vasudeva-Krishna with attributes of the Shankha (conch) and the Sudarshana Chakra wheel.

I thought I had worked on at least the second sentence, but now I can't find what I did in the revision history. I think grammatically it is better than before I worked on it, but now I see that the second sentence repeats the structure of the first sentence: "are...interpreted as being related to". I know sometimes things get repeated because each sentence is from a different source, but when this happens, it is usually possible either to consolidate the sentences or to use alternate wording. I wonder if the "now", in "are now interpreted", in the first sentence is there to emphasize that the interpretation is relatively recent. I also notice that the first sentence uses "deities" and the second uses "divinities". Is it important that these two sentences remain separate? If not, I think they can be consolidated. If you agree, we need to select which word is better: deities or divinities, then remove the unnecessary words and add the remaining material, perhaps after "..., with Vishnu's avatars Balarama-Sankarshana displaying attributes..." (or some other wording). If you prefer to keep the sentences separate, then we need to select alternate wording for the second sentence to avoid repeating "are interpreted as being related to". Perhaps that could all be dispensed with, and we could write, "The divinities displayed on the coins appear to be Vishnu's avatars..." or something like that.


 * Indeed. Rewrote it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

5) In the first paragraph of the section Krishna, you have as the second sentence:


 * Using modern techniques, it has been dated to between 125 and 100 BCE, and traced to an Indo-Greek who served as an ambassador of the Greek king Antialcidas to a regional Indian king.

The second paragraph begins:


 * The three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription, dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE, mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, also mention that the structure was built for their worship.

The first sentence above is about the pillar, and the second sentence above is about the inscriptions. Is it important to mention the dating twice, once for the pillar and once for the inscriptions? I suppose it is possible that a pillar can be erected at a certain point and inscriptions added later, but did that happen here? Weren't the inscriptions added when the pillar was constructed and erected? I believe the date in the first sentence, "between 125 and 100 BCE", and the date in the second sentence, "the 1st century BCE", is the same. Do you really want to mention the dating twice? (Just by the way, you also have the same date in the next paragraph.)


 * They are all different, in three different regions/states there, so different dates make sense. I clarified this and added the locations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

O.K. I understand. The addition of the locations is good. Here are two sentences as they are now:


 * The Heliodorus inscription is not an isolated evidence. For example, three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription, all located in the state of Rajasthan and dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE, mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, also mention that the structure was built for their worship.

First of all, "evidence" is an uncountable noun – it has no singular and no plural form (but it takes a singular verb) – and we don't use the indefinite article a/an with an uncountable noun. You could just take out "an":


 * The Heliodorus inscription is not isolated evidence.

or add "piece of":


 * The Heliodorus inscription is not an isolated piece of evidence.

However, since this is starting a new paragraph, and, for the non-expert reader it may not even be clear what point was being made in the previous paragraph, instead of starting with a negative statement ("is not"), it would be helpful to kind of re-state the point that this evidence seems to be supporting. Something like this:


 * Another piece of evidence for the.... is found in four inscriptions – three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription – all located in the state of Rajasthan and dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE. These inscriptions mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, and indicate that the structure was built for their worship. – Corinne (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

6) In the Krishna section, the tales from the different parts of Krishna's life are told in various sections. I notice that the verb tense differs in different sections. Since I had seen some present tense, I did change some past tense verbs to present tense, but then later saw some past tense and decided to leave it alone until I could ask you which tense you prefer. When writing about fiction, we often use present tense to describe events in the plot. When telling the events of a legend, I'm not sure which tense would be better. On the one hand, some people probably believe that the events in Krishna's life really took place, in which case past tense would make sense. On the other hand, telling the events in present tense makes the events have an exciting immediacy. In any case, the tense – at least for the parts that re-tell the events – should be consistent throughout these sections. Right now, Krishna is in past tense, Krishna is in past tense, Krishna (perhaps should be Adulthood to parallel Childhood) is in present tense, Krishna is in present tense, and Krishna is in present tense. Read through these sections and decide which tense you prefer (for the re-telling of events in Krishna's life, not for other things). Let me know, and I'll make them consistent. (Present tense is also used to describe events in the legend in the Krishna and Krishna sections.)


 * Indeed. The mix came from leaving the historic contributions of other editors unchanged. My bad, I should caught and fixed it. Made the first two consistent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

7) The second paragraph in Krisha begins:


 * Other scholars state that the Puranas are not a reliable source for dating Krishna or Indian history, because the content therein about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms is highly inconsistent across the manuscripts, and likely based in part on real events, in part on hagiography, and in part on expansive imagination or fabrication.

I feel this sentence needs work. It's a little long, but let's focus on two places:

(a) I think this clause: "because the content therein about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms is highly inconsistent across the manuscripts" is a bit wordy, particularly the middle part: "about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms". Why are "kings" separated from "people" and "kingdoms"?

(b) "Likely" is really an adjective ("a likely story"), not an adverb (even though it is often used as an adverb, particularly in the U.S.). Here, it is used as an adverb, modifying the verb "based on" ("it is likely based on" is the passive form of "someone likely bases it on"). It would be better to substitute "probably". But besides that, I can understand the content of the Puranas being based partly on real events and partly on hagiography, but something doesn't sound right when one says the content is based on imagination or fabrication. Perhaps the content is embellished by imagination, or modified by imagination, or expanded by imagination, but not based on imagination. Unless this actually reflects a source, in which case we should leave it alone, I recommend modifying the last part of this sentence so that "[based] in part on imagination or fabrication" is changed to something else.


 * Agreed. Revised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

8) In the course of copy-editing the article, I made a few small edits to Krishna to improve clarity. I hope you'll check those edits to make sure I didn't introduce any material errors. However, I still think this section could be made a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader. I am concerned about the repeated use of the verb "present/presented". Sometimes, it is not completely clear what is meant by that verb.

(a) The first four sentences of the first paragraph are clear enough, but the fifth sentence is not:


 * Krishna has been presented in a pure advaita (shuddhadvaita) foundations by Vallabha Acharya.

"Has been presented in a pure...foundations"?

(b) Right after the quote is the following sentence:


 * While Sheridan and Pintchman both affirm Bryant's view, the latter adds that the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms.

I had re-structured the first part of this sentence, but I did not touch the second half of the sentence, and that part is not clear to me:


 * ...the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms.

"is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms"? What does that mean? Only an expert would know what that means.


 * Rewrote it. This one is a tough one. As a reference resource, this needs a mention with sources, which I hope the rewrite accomplishes. Explaining it will overwhelm the article. I will meditate on this a bit more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

(9) I notice that several times throughout the article, Krishna is referred to as a "supreme being" or "supreme God". However, sometimes both words are in lower case, sometimes "supreme" is capitalized and "being" is not, and sometimes both words are capitalized. Unless it is a direct quote, in which case we shouldn't change the capitalization, I think the capitalization (or lack of capitalization) should be more consistent. If you do a search with the "Find" tool, you will be able to see all of them at once.


 * ✅ Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(10) In the third paragraph in Krishna, there is a sentence that I struggled with. You can see the changes I made . Here is the sentence as it is now:


 * Krishna-related literature such as the Bhagavata Purana accords a metaphysical significance to the performances and treats them as religious ritual, infusing daily life with spiritual meaning, thus representing a good, honest, happy life or as Krishna-inspired drama serving as a means of cleansing the hearts of faithful actors and listeners.

Structurally, the sentence is pretty much all right, but conceptually, I wonder.


 * Krishna-related literature accords a metaphysical significance to the performances...or as Krishna-inspired drama?

There is something that doesn't make sense here. Performances are drama. Drama is a form of literature.


 * The sentence was long and confusing indeed. I split it into two, hopefully they are more clear. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

Can you work on this sentence a bit? Well, that's all for now. – Corinne (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I embedded my replies above. Thank you for the detailed comments, it made my task so much easier! you are amazing! When you have a moment, please check the changes I made. Did they address the points? the wiki-wizard you are, is there a way you can display this discussion here as well as on Talk:Krishna, without the crude cut-paste? Would help future editors appreciate and understand Corinne's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea. Normally, the admins know this kind of stuff., , can you help? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about just leaving a comment on the Krishna talk page – something like, "If anyone is interested in reading comments related to a recent GOCE review, see...", and providing a link to this section? – Corinne (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @Corrine: Will do. I was thinking of WP:TRANS, but the instructions there are much too complicated for me, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the section Krishna, you have re-written a sentence. The sentence as it is now is:


 * These love stories are central to the metaphor-filled development of the Krishna bhakti traditions worshiping Radha Krishna.

The phrase "metaphor-filled development" is not the best wording. It is the stories that are "metaphor-filled", or by a stretch, possibly traditions, but not the development of traditions. You could move "metaphor-filled" to before "love stories":


 * These metaphor-filled love stories are central to the development of...

You'll notice that the previous sentence starts, "These stories". It would be better style to avoid repeating that structure: "These stories...," "These love stories...". You could consolidate the two sentences:


 * Other legends describe him as an enchanter and playful lover of the gopis (milkmaids) of Vrindavana, especially Radha. These metaphor-filled love stories are known as the Rasa lila and were romanticised in the poetry of Jayadeva, author of the Gita Govinda; they are also central to the development of the Krishna bhakti traditions worshiping Radha Krishna. – Corinne (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Revised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw your "Oops" comment above. No problem! I'm glad you approve of the revision I suggested. I already added it. (If you ever see any problem with a version I suggest, please don't be shy about telling me; together we can tweak the sentence until it says just what you want it to say.) May I make a few suggestions regarding the formatting of your replies to my various comments? First, I don't think you need to indent your reply so much. One more indent (made with one colon) than the previous comment is sufficient. Second, I do appreciate your effort to make your reply stand out by using the bold font. It is one way of doing that. I'd just like to mention two other ways I've seen editors use. One is just to use the regular font but set your reply or comment off with a bullet. In that case you don't necessarily have to indent if you are replying right after a numbered comment; you can, but the bullet might be sufficient. Another is to put your reply in a different color text. See User talk:William Harris. See Web colors and you can put on your user or talk page (in edit mode, with a heading such as "Text colors", then save) for easy access to the colors. Also see User talk:William Harris and User talk:William Harris, where William Harris did not always use color or bullets; when he did not use color he left a space before his reply and indented one space more than the previous comment or material. Just some ideas. – Corinne (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Since your replies were so excellently detailed, I was wondering how to make it quicker for you and others to find my response. I didn't know that replies on the talk pages could be colored! at will, and I much appreciate the above guidance. You taught me something useful today, just like Bishonen, JJ, Kautilya3 and others have in past. I will study William Harris' edits, and improve me further! BIG thanks again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. You might want to place this in a handy place. It's the formatting you need to put text in a color: Text goes here. . Of course, you select the color you want.  – Corinne (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Intervention and Lateral Thinking
Thank you so much for helping to resolve the dispute at Deity over section headers. Behold, for that you get Barnstar!

Thanks for the kind words, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
- I haven't understood the context of this edit summary. Can you please throw some light? Just curious. Best regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  17:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Read the main article, the cited sources and our content policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. :-) —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I too was perplexed with the edit summary, though the edit itself was fine. The lead sentence is presumably talking about the current situation, not the Rigvedic times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The summary remarked on the source which I removed. It made the amazing claim that Rigveda was written in 1000 CE, etc. Another example why a source on food/recipes should not be used as a source for ancient literature/ religion/ MEDRS/ etc, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Bad-faith comment
This is an extremely bad faith comment that you made regarding me.VR talk  06:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Actus purus
Read it; sounds just like Advaita Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Indeed, with the key difference that Actus Purus is dualism, unlike Advaita or Advaya. We should work on Actus Purus someday. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Bharata (Ramayana)

 * Sorry to bother you with this, but most of the content of the page Bharata (Ramayana) was lost due to poor formatting and removal by a blocked user. I couldn't revert it due to conflicting intermediate edits. Thanks. King Prithviraj II (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The old content seems to have been completely unsourced and WP:OR. I do not want to replace the new bad article with old bad article. Please click on the links above, find some quality reliable sources on Bharata (Ramayana) and then summarize those sources to the best of your ability. Please consider rebuilding the article with content from reliable sources. It is slow and hard work, but worth the effort if you care about that article, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Both you and the other user have violated WP:3RR on Animal protection-related violence. "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Thus in your 3 reverts, you revert different material each time (not the same) and your reverts only partially revert another user's edits, but they are reverts nonetheless. I won't report you or the other user this time.

I advise you to stop edit-warring and discuss on the talk page.VR talk  00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I believe you are sorely mistaken!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Cow protection movement. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

This edit of yours is inappropriate. You ask Capitals00 to join the discussion even though he has never edited this article nor commented on it. Why did you ask only him and not any other user? Given recent history where you have both been on the same side of an edit war, this would be an example of WP:Votestacking. You may argue that Capitals00 has been involved in other cow-protection related discussions. But then so have other users, including those whose POVs differ from yours. Yet you chose to invite only him to the discussion. I've seen you do this many times before and it should stop.VR talk  13:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop WP:Harassing me, and do not post allegations such as "leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages" to me or any other wikipedia editor without edit diffs. This is casting aspersions without evidence.
 * You mention this, but that is entirely consistent with WP:APPNOTE, which states inviting other editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic or closely related topics, openly etc is fine. There is no vote in progress, so it is wrong to suggest there is votestacking. If you are trying to suggest will edit war, that too is casting aspersions.
 * Your behavior is increasingly disruptive. You end with a new allegation, without edit diffs, "I've seen you do this many times before and it should stop." This is another example of repetitive casting aspersions. Please stop this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling out another user for violating wiki policies is not harassment.
 * Capitals00 isn't the only who had participated in discussion on "closely related topics". Fowler&fowler and others had done too. But you only called upon Capitals00 for opinion. That appears to be a violation of "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions". If you're going to try and attract users, make sure you do so for everyone regardless of whether they agree with you or disagree with you.VR talk  01:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense again. We don't need to invite everyone to every discussion. A 3O generally can be one or multiple invitation. There is no wikipedia rule about mass inviting every one. F&f is traveling these days. Please know I feel bullied by your ways and your false, unsubstantiated "I've seen you do this many times before and it should stop" and similar 'without diff' aspersions. I urge you to stop your harassment and inhumane ways! Wikipedia community guidelines require you to, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion
Hello, you are welcome to participate in the move discussion at Talk:Vallabha Acharya. South Indian Geek (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Assassination
Sarah Welch: I said on the talk page post that I need a couple of days to fix the article. I did not interfere with your editing when you took a week, or was it more, to rewrite the article. Please return the same courtesy. The banner atop says it is under construction. People understand. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * F&f: If you have not noticed "under construction" template message states, "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template." Please quit this overbearing style, because wikipedia is a collaborative project! This is a live article...... what I fixed were gross errors such as "Godse and his assassination accomplices were residents of .", harv errors, etc. If you need many days, why not copy the whole article and work in your sandbox? I have left your version intact for now. To be continued on Talk:Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because, when people dump a pre-written article into main space, it creates bigger problems. Again, I gave you plenty opportunity to mangle the article with nonsense about Godse offering civil disobedience in Hyderabad, or so and so being residents of the Deccan (just like I'm visiting the Indo-Australian tectonic plate right now).  Please return the same courtesy.  Again please don't facilely quote WP platitudes. I've been around long enough to know what is real politeness and what is fake.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Quit the bullying, please. Spare us your nonsensical lectures and please learn to stick to what the reliable high-quality sources are stating. The community has an agreed collaboration process, please follow them. I am not going to change my ways!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hindu Kush
OK, Sorry for the deletion of some of your sources, I've added them back. But I maintain that a list makes the section much more readable. Plus, you have deleted some valid references. See TP. Please stop putting warning messages in my TP, you are also edit-warring. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Matunga-mumbai: You are now already blocked. FWIW, you are mistaken about me deleting references. You were not reading the section carefully, those sources are already there and correctly summarized by previous editors. You were adding a lot of unsourced content, OR and misrepresenting sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
No opinion regarding who is right or wrong but is there any chance you and the other can discuss this stuff rather than keep adding and removing? I am getting a lot of pings related to linked articles that, presumably, I created. The little blue thing at the top of the screen is driving me daft. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Trying to, on Talk:Cattle theft in India. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Riffian people
After the good work you've done in (Shilha people and Tuareg people). Can you improve and expand this article. There is nothing to read in it. Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite. Will put it on my to-review / do list. Perhaps, , might have some time to chip in earlier. They are often busy, but really good in our Africa space articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I'm so glad that there is editors like you in wikipedia. You’re doing a great job! Keep up the good work! Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the one sentence stub Riffian people article, and added a number of reliable sources. Let us watch the stability of the article for a while, given it relates to recent protests, issues of nationalism and accusations of brutal suppression in Morocco. I may return to the article and expand it further, if it remains generally stable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding this article. Kind Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Asceticism
Could you please review at least this edit to Asceticism, where the first sentence of the result is rather butchered. Perhaps looking at that series of edits with fresh eyes might find other problems that escaped your attention at that time? Shenme (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I have removed that sentence and few others. Because the aish.com website does not qualify as RS, plus there is troubling OR therein. I remember wanting to check into scholarly sources related to it and on Rabbi Noah Weinberg, so temporarily left it alone. Then it escaped my attention, and I never got around to it. I will review it in the coming days. Please feel free to update or bandage it, if you have the time and an inclination, meanwhile. Thank you for the note, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hindu Cosmology
I appreciate your Work but can you elaborate Article of Hindu cosmology by adding Age of Brahma. Age of Brahma is also a part of Cosmology as it shows the age of earth as well as universe IndianEditor (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * IndianEditor: Brahma-related content is already in that article, added by several wikipedia editors. As admin Diannaa explained to you on your talk page, content you or anyone contributes to wikipedia is welcome, but it needs to be sourced to reliable sources without copyright violations. So, your best first step would be to read the article carefully. Next find and check if the source is a high quality reliable source per WP:RS guidelines, read the source carefully if it is reliable, then summarize that source in your own words per WP:Copyvio and WP:Plag guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * considering your familiarity with the topic, I would be grateful if you could also review this edit or comment there. Thank you very much, — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks for the alert, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Kathak
Hey, why are you removing my edits to the Kathak page. If you're Indian, you know that Kathak is a very important part of Islamic heritage in India, removing the connection from our minority Muslim community is weird. And Kathak isn't exclusive to India, it's a South Asian dance form in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulRamchandani (talk • contribs)


 * RahulRamchandani: An explanation has been waiting for you on Talk:Kathak. To be continued there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Moksha (Jainism)
Hello! I was thinking of starting to improve Moksha (Jainism) as it is one of the popular articles on Jainism. Would you like to collaborate, or know someone who would like to? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  07:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It indeed is a high traffic but weak article. We should summarize Padmanath Jaini, John Cort, Peter Flugel, Paul Dundas, Jeff Long, etc as well. Explain concepts such as bhavya and abhavya jiva in moksa better, as well as others unique to liberation/deliverance/spiritual freedom in Jainism. Please go ahead. I may join you, probably in a few weeks. any time and interest you can spare? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I know too little about the topic; I've got one book on Jainism in my personal library...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * JJ: It is an interesting topic, given the interaction and cross influence between Buddhism and Jainism. A quick summary of moksa is on pp. 104-106 of The Jains by Paul Dundas. His book is a good overview on Jainism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will try to improve the article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  15:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Krishna GA
Hi Just wanted ask, since you have worked extensively on this page, could we coloborate to bring back the article to GA status again ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Let us do it. It has been recently copyedited nicely by Corinne. Can you start the paperwork with the GA nom? Looking forward to collaborating on this, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have Re-nominated it Shrikanthv (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi just to let you know the review has started for the article Shrikanthv (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Onam
I are afraid that Onam is not just a Hindu festival, it is a harvest festival, it has Hindu roots, cultural roots, primordial connections and many more.. so its not an exclusive Hindu festival (Similar to Pongal in Tamilnadu). But one of the story is based on the Hindu King Mahabali.

Unfortunately The sources you have sited are foreign sources (From Outside India), which poorly rely on local Knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbangalore (talk • contribs)


 * Please stop calling scholarly publications as "foreign sources" and please keep your personal wisdom / prejudices / opinions for a blog. Do read the article carefully, and please do not insert your POV before cites. The content must reflect the cited scholarly reliable sources. Discuss this on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the link, which is the official statement about Onam http://www.prd.kerala.gov.in/onam.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbangalore (talk • contribs)


 * Please discuss this on Talk:Onam. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Hi Sarah, Just wanted to have a general discussion on "reliability" of source, Since I have seen that your area of focus is related to Hinduism and its literatures, how would you consider somenthing scholarly and something as WP:QS or wp:SPS, AS you may know by now most of the literature related to spirtuality are not straightforward and ofcourse there are million everywhere who would like to divert the literature to thier own " interpretation" of things.

and also am very curious to know how you got involved in this subject itself !? Shrikanthv (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Shrikanthv: Please see WP:RS guidelines – they suffice. I contribute to Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Africa-related articles / sections. To a lesser extent Christianity, Islam, etc. Perhaps you do not read other areas as much. Spirituality and religion topics, as well as politics / fast developing controversial topics do have various POVs. That is why NPOV is such an important policy. Maintainging NPOV, NOR, checking reliability of sources is difficult indeed when there are editors more familiar with a certain POV, or have limited or no access to scholarly and other reliable publications, or have an agenda / soap / POV to advocate, or easily get tempted into OR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * HI dont take me for wrong, I am not editwarring ;) ! and was just a friendly question!. offcourse I contribute mostly to psychology, electrical, biographical and some times  in hinduism, philo and yes have not been involved with other religious subject. have seen your edits in very broad deep scripture subjects (some times even forgotten once) and was really curious how you got interested in these subjects ? Shrikanthv (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries! For privacy reasons let us return to wikipedia project rather than to more personal questions. If you have time, it would be worth scrubbing the Krishna article for harv/sfn formatting and finding any sentences that are unsourced. That will expedite the review of your GA nom. :-), Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Cattle theft
Hi MSW. You've been on wikipedia for a while so I don't want to template you and you know the consequences so please hold back on the revert war on Cattle theft in India. Instead, use the talk page to discuss why fowler's sourced additions to the page should not be included. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope you will paste this note on F&f page too, else it feels like taking side which I know is not your style. FWIW, please see the discussion on the article page. I already did what you asked. I waited for a week. After no new comments, I am now applying consensus so far. I welcome your comments on that talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a note on casting aspersions on their page. Unfortunately, neither cattle nor their theft in India is of any interest to me so I'll leave the discussion to you, f&f, and vanamonde93. Hopefully, you all can work things out in a reasonable manner. --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make unilateral edits on Cattle theft in India
Vanamonde has not given you permission to make any edits on Cattle theft in India least of all clueless ones slathered with bias. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You said goodbye to that article a week ago! To be continued on the article talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I said goodbye to adding further text myself or to discussing new topics. I did not say goodbye to restoring removal of text agreed upon by the presiding admin.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Ms Sarah Welhc, I do apologize very earnestly for casting aspersions in my edit summary (which may be seen in the history of Cattle theft in India). It is just that I was scandalized by someone, namely you,  removing sourced content that was the subject of consensus presided over by an admin. But I do understand I should have kept my cool. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted hoping you, F&f, will stop such persistently non-constructive scandalizing behavior. You misrepresent or inadvertently misunderstand admin Vanamonde, and it would be best if you leave it to Vanamonde to review the sources, discuss/explain it on the talk page and revise. It is not NPOV if we allow sources with a 'passing mention' for one side/POV and disallow the same for 'passing or more substantial mention' for the other side/POV. It does not matter which side it is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood what it was I was apologizing about. I wasn't apologizing about my restoration of sourced edits, some of which were made by admin Vanamonde himself, nor about my assessment of what he said, which I believe to be accurate.  I was apologizing only about my edit summary, not all of it, only for the noun phrase that follows the verb make.  I hope that is clear.  I believe what is scandalous is your persistent addition of content in a manner which is nothing if not unilateral, Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * F&f: Read again. I never stated that you were apologizing about your edits! you clearly were trying to apologize for another instance of "your persistently non-constructive scandalizing behavior" exemplified in the abusiveness in your edit comment! You come across as someone wanting to mock, bully with snide remarks and make editing environment of wikipedia unpleasant, rather than collaborate. Then spin around, muddle things and revert with silly baseless accusations in a TEXTWALL without edit diffs or evidence. On rest, there is nothing unilateral in my edits. They are based on proper application of clarification and comments by admins such as Vanamonde. In the most recent case, my edits came after the due discussion and the week-long wait on the talk page. My edits sometimes undo your double standards in applying wikipedia policies, your POV-pushing, your flawed OR blended in with misrepresentations of sources which unfortunately comes across as POV pushing wrapped in colorful righteousness lectures and bullying language as noted by other editors and admins asking you, F&f, again and again to "tone it down a bit". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Is this an example of TEXTWALL without edit diffs or evidence, or just syntax sinking in the slough of the banal? Mine had plenty diffs and direct quotes of the presiding admin. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no need for me or anyone to repeat something. See Talk:Cattle theft in India. To be continued there, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Navayana
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Need your help
A user called "Coolwikicool" keeps editing Hinduism pages and forcefully inserts "Parvati" and "Shiva" references everywhere despite repeated warnings (5+) and requests for citation. He goes inactive for a few days and again pops back up. The user has never replied back or acknowledges the warnings. What do we do?

For example see the page history of "Matrikas" link here. For every edit he cites the reason as "corrected". ShotgunMavericks (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for challenging unsourced and disruptive edits. The best steps are: [1-A] After your second revert, always start a section on the article's talk page inviting the editor to explain their concerns / edits or request them to provide a reliable source on the article talk page. An effort to start a discussion on the article's talk page is almost always necessary unless it is outright vandalism/format disruption. [1-B] simultaneously post a WP:3RR warning on the user's talk page after the second revert within 24 hours (avoid templating experienced editors with over 5,000 edits). [2] Report the edit warring to the 3RR admin board, if and only if there are 4 or more reverts in 24 hours AND the editor has previously warned about the 3RR. [3] If they continue repeating the disruptive behavior, you can try reporting the editor on WP:ANI, but you must include edit diffs that shows the disruptive behavior. Never accuse someone of disruption without edit diff evidence. I have started this process for the Matrikas article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. Thank you! ShotgunMavericks (talk)

Krishna GA
Hi Krishna GA has been started :: --Shrikanthv (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No Sanskrit Promotions Please
Sarah. You are not Neutral. You are always promoting Sanskrit. In which part of the world we have heard "Karthikeya" Temple?. That is "Murugan" Temple every where.Please be Neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitha Swaminathan (talk • contribs)


 * Kavitha Swaminathan: As I explained elsewhere, past editors have discussed whether that specific article should be named Kartikeya or Murugan. I was not involved. Based on WP:RS and discussions (see Redtigerxyz's explanations on the article's talk page archived discussions e.g.), the consensus was to use the pan-Indian term Kartikeya. The article already states the alternate names of Kartikeya, including Murugan! This has nothing to do with Sanskrit or Tamil or whatever language, and you are mistaken in more ways than one (yep, Kartikeya is common in many ancient and medieval Hindu temples in and outside Tamil speaking regions). We need to stick to the consensus and RS, and what wikipedia processes/policies are. Other than me, an admin has already reverted you, so please let this rest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sarah : Pan world, it is "Murugan" Temple Only . --Kavitha Swaminathan (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Kavitha Swaminathan: Nope, you misunderstand and are grossly misinformed. Both Murugan and Kartikeya are common names, and the article mentions both. You are free to believe whatever opinions / prejudices / wisdoms you wish, but in wikipedia we must rely on published scholarship and high quality WP:RS. Citing wikipedia articles / blogs / websites / etc is unacceptable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sikhism
I'm uneasy with your recent edit re monotheism, monism and panentheism, but I don't have access to the three sources you cited to get more information. My understanding is that monism is related to atheism and pantheism and I don't see how anyone could describe Sikhism as monistic. I'm also puzzled by the sentence about panentheism (incidentally, why did you put it in brackets?). Panentheism is a form of monotheism, so those who describe Sikhism as panentheistic are not disagreeing with those who describe it as monotheistic. Apuldram (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see the references except for the Nesbitt one and she seems to settle at monotheistic.(p.21). Other than that, shouldn't the broad religious category come up front in the lead as it was before (unless that is heavily disputed)? Handy for the reader. --regentspark (comment) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Monism is not atheism. Appiusforum.net is non-RS, and the bit they have about maya etc there is strange / non-scholarly / absurd. A better source is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. On Sikhism and monism, see this, pages 1-3 for a quick read. Yes, our Sikhism article is not adequately explaining this part, and that may be partly why we have had edit warring in the past. You make good points overall, but let us reflect on how to explain these concepts as they apply (or do not apply) to Sikhism better. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have the Nesbitt's book on my shelf. The relevant discussion continues after the "it is a monotheistic, rather than a monist" part (page 23 in the hard copy). Nesbitt then writes, "But English renderings tend misleadingly to reinforce a Semitic understanding of monotheism, rather than Guru Nanak's mystical awareness of the one that is expressed through the many." That is spot on! that is why I feel we must be careful in not pushing that bit into the lead, and try the best we can to clarify this in the main article. Encyclopedia Britannica does not assert 'monotheism' or 'monism' or etc in its lead para, fwiw. Apuldram: If you don't have Nesbitt's Oxford Univ Press published book, and want a clip of that page, I can - under Fair Use principle - scan that part and email you. Please contact me by email if you want that scan. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, and the effort to bring some more gender balance in wikipedia coverage/efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks for the kind words. Also thanks for self-correcting many of the misnamed, misidentified file names in the wikimedia commons collection of images. We have a huge mess there, and unlike you who is helping fix things there, those who uploaded many of the images are not active. Not only are Aihole images misidentified, so are Pattadakal, Badami, Hampi, Belur, etc images. I have fixed a few, then gave up given the paperwork involved. I am reflecting what we can do about them. There are just too many to file rename requests one by one. Any guidance? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I’ve uploaded many images of Aihole and nearby monuments, you can check them from my commons page, they may be helpful to you. Since I uploaded them in hurry they got many incorrect name, I’ll correct them soon.—IM3847 (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Pattadakal
Hi, copy/paste moves such as the one you performed at Pattadakal are not recommended. Please revert and get an admin to do it for you. Assuming that you were unable to move Group of Monuments at Pattadakal back to Pattadakal (because the latter had been edited after the previous move), just nominate Pattadakal for speedy deletion to "make way for a move" and note that you are reversing your own move on Oct 1.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I already requested help on the article talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, it looks like Utcursch has been afk for a couple of days. Seeing as to how fixing the history will be problematic if some other editor edits the wrong page, I've reverted the copy/paste and requested a CSD + move.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sikhism holy sites
, The wikipedia articles on Golden Temple, Anandpur Sahib, Fatehgarh Sahib and other Sikh holy sites seem weak, mostly unreferenced and in poor shape. Could you please review and give some suggestions, particularly good WP:RS you may know. Would appreciate a collaborative effort to improve them, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Thank you for the notice on my personal talk page. Edit warring can indeed result in a block, and we should avoid it. I might point out, however, that you also might be blocked. I suggest therefore that you continue using the article talk page.PiCo (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Krishna
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

PD-ART
Regarding your deletion nomination here, I uploaded this image under the PD-ART license, which, as far as I know, is perfectly legitimate for modern, faithful (i.e. non-creative) reproductions of 2-dimensional ancient works of art, especially ancient (public domain) paintings. The painting itself is from the 5th century CE. The fact that the photograph is modern is irrelevant. I would appreciate if you did not accuse people unduly without proper knowledge (in this case your lack of understanding of PD-ART rules). On another plane, I believe it is rather rude to resort to massive deletions of a great amount of good-faith efforts by another editor of good standing without even waiting for the conclusion of the very Talk Page discussion you started. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe either you or I have an incorrect understanding of PD-Art rules. Allow me to ignore the rest of your commentary, except for the note that I disagree with you. There is no way 125+ year old questionable sources are acceptable when recent, updated scholarly RS are available. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your new content at Ajanta caves! There is still some important information to add to the caves if we want a correct coverage, but I trust you still have more to come from Spink? In Cave 26, I replaced some of the old drawings you had uploaded by recent photographs (the Dagoba and the Reclining Buddha), sorry for that. Thanks for the hard work. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Janaka
Hello, I was reading about Janaka and came to know that there are actually two separate characters with the same name. One was father of Sita in the Ramayana and the other was 7th-century historical king. If you see Janaka, it mentions about the 7th-century king along with a small para on the father of Sita. Would it be good to split that into a separate article or should we just move that to Sita and mention the disambiguation in header? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  14:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS. I have done a few edits to clear things, please review the same as well. Thanks. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  14:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Janaka is more common in Indian texts than just two! See this, for example. Instead of splitting the relatively short article right away, please consider expanding the sections with summaries from good quality scholarly sources. A split is typically better if and when the article gets big enough. I will review it in coming weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Divine madness
Hi. I've made a suggestion for renaming Divine madness (religion) on its talk page. PopSci (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

COPYVIO
Please don't copy/paste as you did from Gombrich in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If you study the edit diff carefully, you will see it was there in the previous version. I didn't copy-paste it, not my style. But, yep, I should have caught it and I am glad you did! I will look into who got that part in, first! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct. My apologies! Jytdog (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Carey's source
Carey's only source for the three translated Sanskrit passages he quoted was an article, Astronomical Vedic Science, by J Arunachalam in the March 1985 issue of a now defunct Indian monthly popular science magazine, Science Age. It's evident from what Carey wrote ("I quote from J. Arunachalan's [sic—the "n" is a misprint] translation from the Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda") that he erroneously thought all these passages came from the Rig Veda. In fact, neither of the first two do (I haven't investigated the third). In saying that they did, Carey was guilty of badly misrepresenting his source: Concerning the source of the first passage, whose transliteration he gives as "Soura mandala madhyastham Sambam", Arunachalam gives no more information than that it is to be found in "the prescribed daily prayers to the Sun (sandhya vandanam)". It's probably not long enough to say for sure that it could only occur in a single place in all of the ancient Hindu Sanskrit scriptures. All I can say is that despite some many tens of hours of searching, the passage I quoted from the Rudra yamala is the only occurrence of it that I have been able to find.
 * Nowhere in his article does Arunachalam claim any credit for the translations he gives, and I have good reason for believing that he was probably not responsible for them.
 * Nowhere in his article does Arunachalam say that any of the three passages in question comes from the Rig Veda. In fact, he says explicitly that the second of the three is from the "Taithiriya Aranyaka" of the Yajur Veda.

Images of the three pages of Arunachalam's article can be found in this web reprint of a rebuttal by the eminent Indian astrophysicist, Jayant Narlikar, published in the immediately subsequent issue of the same magazine. David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Narlikar is known for his admirable and well reasoned criticism of Vedic astrology and allegations around it. Narlikar demands scientific evidence, and rightly shows how such evidence is weak. There is indeed much amazingly absurd claims being made about Vedic science/astrology etc. I agree. But swinging the pendulum too far on the other side, without scientific evidence is as bad. After all, human knowledge begins from conjectures and imagination. Unless I missed something, I don't think Narlikar is denying that.
 * Narlikar writes in the link you give, "Unfortunately, Sanskrit (a language which I know a little and admire a lot) is (...)" and "This being the drawback of Sanskrit, statements in that language depend very much on who chooses to interpret them." Indeed. That is so true for all human languages (lets exclude computer and related languages). We must treat everyone with caution, including Narlikar and a host of writers on all sides who know even less Sanskrit than him! On Carey/Arunachalam... do they ever mention anywhere which Prapathaka it is from? I have one version of the Taittiriya Aranyaka manuscript, and it has 378 pages of dense Sanskrit verses. If we knew the Prapathaka, I could try to help you in your efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I can recall (it's a long time since I last read his article in its entirety), Arunachalam gives no clue as to whereabouts in the Taittiriya Aranyaka the passage he quoted from it can be found. But the transliteration into Latin script he gives:
 * kimsvithadhrantharabhutham
 * yeneme vidhruthe ube
 * vishnuna vidhruthe bhoomi
 * Iti Vathsasya vedana  —— stanza 27


 * Vyastabhnath rodhasi Vishnavete —— stanza 28


 * is sufficiently long that I was able to identify the passage as being from Chapter 1, verses 8-2 and 8-3, in this version (pp.19-20), as the divisions are so labelled in it:


 * kimsvidatrāntarā bhūtam
 * yeneme vidhṛte ubhe
 * viṣṇunā vidhṛte bhūmī
 * vatsasya vedanā
 * iti irāvatī dhenumatī hi bhūtam
 * sūyavasinī manuṣe daśasye || 27 ||


 * vyaṣṭabhnādrodasī viṣṇavete … | 28 |


 * The lines in red are unmarked omissions from the transliteration Arunachalam gives. An English translation seems to have been made, but there appears to be no library near me which holds a copy.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ajanta inscriptions
Hi Ms Sarah Welch. Would you remember in which caves of Ajanta you took the following photographs of Brahmi inscriptions (this is for proper categorizing on Commons and possible future usage in the article). Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र: Cave 17 and 10 respectively. I will update wikimedia commons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ajanta
Hi Ms Sarah Welch. I have finished sorting most important un-categorized images of Ajanta Caves at Commons, and documented all caves through their respective Commons category (a few minor caves only have external views, but most surprisingly have a lot of inside images as well). There was quite a bit of confusion, but Street view was a great help (for example Cave 19, although Google mixed-up the numbering of caves 6, 7 and 8). The cave-by-cave description in the article is pretty much completed in terms of visuals, so you're welcome to beef it up with reliable content! Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ajanta Cave 8
Good catch! These four images, labeled Cave 8, actually all belong to the upper level of Cave 6, in an around the sanctum. I re-categorized them accordingly. Google Streetview actually calls this level "cave No7", which doesn't help. I discovered however how beautiful the top floor of Cave 6 is finally, which makes me think it really deserves its own subsection.

We end up with no images for the real cave 8, except for an outside view and a plan. That's quite a mystery.... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Another mystery: I don't know where the following image belongs: .. and this image is not the Buddha in the sanctum of the upper level of cave 6, despite its label, except if there is a secondary sanctum I am not aware of... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Got it... it is indeed a secondary sanctum to the right of the central one, which appears only in part (right attendant only, but unmistakable) on Streetview.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Mystery solved
The following pictures, including three different sitting Buddhas, were only taken a few seconds apart, so they necessarily all belong to the upper level of Cave 6. Do you have any remembrance of this extraordinary layout, or any precise source on the matter? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ajanta Cave 30
Do you know if cave 30 corresponds to the trapezoid entrance which can be seen under Cave 17 in this photograph. Or is it in a different location entirely? Thank you. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is near the river bed, below and between Cave 16 and Cave 15. Pages 238-240 of this gives more info. Huu Phuoc Le mentions it on page 112 of Buddhist Architecture, in case you have a copy (I saw you cited it). There is some confusion on numbering system, with some calling it 15A, one with a narrow opening. Huu Phuoc Le does not, keeps 15A and 30 separate, if you read the source carefully. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hampi

 * Baffle gab1978: Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries; good luck with your planned GA nomination. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you have time to file the GA nom for Hampi and collaborate with me on working on the review comments as and when they begin? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi that sounds good!, I am very much intersted Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please review the article and then start the process! I hope our collaboration helps make Hampi another GA article. It has high traffic. Cheers and thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering wether to add this info or not in the article Hampi, this place is very well known in climbing community for bouldering, mentioned in news 1, 2, 3, 4, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs)


 * That may better fit in the more general Hampi (town) article. Those boulders are not a part of the Hampi monuments, are they? The article in the NYTimes source seems to be about Hampi (town). FWIW, I hope no one has been trying to use the monuments to dig in their hooks, tie their ropes and climb!! :-), Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it belongs to the "town" and not monuments, Noo bouldering uses no tie or ropes its free style! Shrikanthv (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo licensing
Dear Ms Sarah Welch. As far as I know, you have to use the PD-ART license for this kind of images, as they are modern non-creative/ derivative photographs (made rather recently by someone at the Victoria and Albert Museum) of a 2-D PD painting (that of Griffiths circa 1872-1873). The photograph itself is not PD, it is PD-ART (=it is not protected in the US, but still protected in may other countries that recognize copyrights for photographs of old 2D artworks). PD would only apply if you took the photograph yourself and decided to release all rights, for example, or if the photographer had died 70+ years ago. Just trying to help. If I'm wrong, please disregard. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Ms Sarah Welch. I am trying to be nice and diplomatic, but could you kindly explain your rationale for not taking action on the above warning. As far as I know, your licensing as "Public Domain" of these numerous modern photographs of ancient works of art from the Victoria and Albert Museum is infringing on the copyrights of the museum as well as numerous photographers (the site says "Copyright: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London 2017. All Rights Reserved"). Using the PD license means you are providing the images to anybody in the world for free use, and Wikipedia can be accused  of spreading false, detrimental, information. Again, as far as I know, the copyright of these images is disregarded in the US only (thanks to Bridgeman v. Corel (1999)) and that includes US-based websites, but remains fully in most other countries, and this is described by the PD-ART license exclusively. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र: Those recently uploaded images are not the first set of 19th-century images we have from the British Library and V&A. Please review the previous uploads by other editors from the same archives of similarly dated/quality pictures including in-residence editors, the collections, the detailed discussions including admin comments. I did a while ago. The old photos may fall under multiple categories of license. I used the license that previous editors/admins used for uploads a few years ago. But if there is a better PD category, by all means change it for all 18th/19th century BL, VA etc images including those I uploaded. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you are not taking this seriously. Some users are certainly fairly irresponsible with their copyrights, but it is not a reason to do the same, especially if you are aware of the rules. And these inappropriatly licensed works usually get deleted in the long run. Many old images can be uploaded as PD when they simply are scans, which does not create copyright. But when this is modern high-quality photographic work, as is clearly the case in the images you uploaded (and this is not 70 years + or pre-1923 photography!), and since the museum claims copyright, copyright indeed applies in most of the countries of the world, except in the US, hence the need to use PD-ART. It is quite obvious. You are responsible for acknowledging the rules in order to avoid copyright infringement and respect the rights of artists, and for managing your copyright claims properly, I cannot do that in your place. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia / wikimedia / wiki-etc are collaborative projects. Quit the lecture, reread what I wrote above, and collaborate!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are blatantly and knowingly making major copyright infringements, and you are telling other users you won't do a thing, and that they should clean your mess? I can hardly believe it. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken in more ways than one. You start by saying, use PD-Art license category, not anything else. I wrote, feel free to change it since wiki is a collaborative effort. Now you make absurd allegations. All I know is that the original author of the 2D art died more than 70 years ago, the 2D art was created / published before 1921, and that I uploaded is a faithful reproduction of 2D art, which is the license category I used. I have sought guidance and discussed this with a wikimedia admin ages ago! I have done what I understood the guidance to be. If you know the law better, edit the permissions, as this is all volunteer collaborative effort. If you are wrong, someone else will edit it further. Now, quit pestering me please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am giving it a last try, after what I am sorry I will have to contact a Wikimedia Administrator to lodge a complaint for large-scale copyright infringement (and I truely would prefer to avoid that): a modern faithful photographic reproduction of old 2D art, requires PD-ART, not PD. It is not at all the same thing: PD strips the photographer (and the museum) of all rights, PD-ART protects their rights worldwide, outside of the US. And, sorry, but you are responsible for managing your copyrights properly. That's all. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I already contacted a wikimedia admin. Give it a day or two, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any news from the Admin you contacted? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, thankfully promptly two days ago. Jim stated either is fine, and that I chose the right license template for cases where the photo / 2D-Art was pre-1923 and the original author died 70+ years ago. He explained some nuances, then added we don't need to agonize over this. Jim is a seasoned wikimedia admin and a bureaucrat in WMF. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt feedback... I don't like to do this, but: 1) If THIS is the discussion with an Admin you are referring to, then I am afraid your presentation of the facts to him is quite misleading. You make it sound like the photograph was published by John Griffiths before 1918. But actually, only the painting was made before 1918, whereas the photograph is a recent work by the Victoria and Albert Museum, part of a modern series of photographs of which the modern character is obvious. Another of the images which you uploaded from the same group, by the way, clearly shows contemporary background (here) and is therefore a complete copyright violation (which you can only recover by having the work deleted from Commons, then possibly re-uploaded after cropping down to the 2D surface and claiming PD-ART). 2) All these photographs you uploaded, besides being modern photographs of pre-1923 paintings by Griffiths, are clearly copyrighted by the Victoria and Albert Museum: if you click the “Download button” on their page, they clearly specify that the image is © Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Also, on this page: “The text and images published on 'Search the Collections' are protected by copyright law” and “All images must be credited as follows: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.” Therefore this has nothing to do with Public Domain material contrary to what you claim in your uploads. Only PD-ART could be acceptable, and in the US only. You have to honestly explain to the Admin that you are actually talking about a copyrighted modern photograph of an ancient painting, and you will see his answer will be quite different. 3) By the way, many images you are uploading, such as this one this one or this one and others, are not even eligible to PD-ART as they are copyrighted photographs of full-fledged 3D objects and therefore constitute complete copyright violations : your best course is to promptly request their deletion from Commons. 4) Finally, it seems you already know very well how to upload under PD-ART, since you did so, and very properly, with several files from August 2017, such as this one, so you cannot claim ignorance of the rules as you have been doing above... In all likelihood you do understand there is a problem, but it seems you do not want to recognize the issue and take action, and hope it will just evaporate away. A lot of damage is being done however to the lawful copyrights of several museums and photographers, and to Wikipedia: this has to be resolved. I recommend you swiftly remedy these copyright violation issues on a voluntary basis, by deletion requests and re-licensing where appropriate, before the problem escalates. Do consult with an admin if you are unconvinced, but please do it with the right facts. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * पाटलिपुत्र: The admin Jim knows the PD-old-70-1923 rules, I gave him all the links, and you should avoid casting aspersions on his competence. I understand the PD-old-70-1923 rules and am following them. I feel you don't understand PD-old-70-1923 rules. In case of V&A, if the image is in copyright, such as this 1935 one, which is, V&A cautions "image in copyright" in red, to the right above "More information". This is clearly not the case in all the images I have uploaded, to the best of my knowledge, after duly checking with Jim at wikimedia commons and V&A.
 * Good luck with whatever you wish to do. Just link this thread and the Jim's thread to wherever you want to escalate this. I suggest try Jim first. As I stated before, I am fine with either changing the license template to PD-old-100 or whatever if Jim reconsiders and suggests. I am also fine if Jim recommends another course of action or delete. May be there is a bot to help us save time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is my message to Jim . पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim just confirmed that the modern photographs you uploaded from museum websites should indeed be licensed under PD-ART . As for this or this and several others you uploaded, they are also copyright violations as they are copyrighted images of obvious 3D objects, you have to ask for their deletion from Commons (I don't want to bother Jim again with such obvious stuff, but please consult if in doubt). Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * पाटलिपुत्र: Sorry, you misunderstand Jim. I already asked you to escalate it wherever you want. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As you wish: . पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer from Administrators' noticeboard: "I agree Ms Sarah Welch should correctly tag the photos of paintings as PD-Art." पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र: Thanks, for at last following the due process. You missed mentioning that the multiple admins state there are no "copyright violation" in any of the cases you have been pestering me with. Our dispute is on license tags and please let the discussion unfold on wikimedia admin board, because we have an upload template issue in addition to the confusions in your mind. Don't post an update on my wikipedia talk page here, because I am following the discussion on wikimedia and we should keep our comments in one place. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Call it as you wish, but your licensing for these photographs is just inadequate, that's all, and you do damage copyrights of museums and photographers in the process. It's fundamentally not a formatting issue, as thousands of Wikipedians already use the PD-ART template and its options without a problem. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't get it. After comments of three admins and seasoned volunteer(s) who have done an extraordinary amount of work on museum/etc related artwork! After they acknowledge PD-old-70-1923 is also okay. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the Administrator's notice board is saying that "Ms Sarah Welch should correctly tag the photos of paintings as PD-Art." and that using a PD-Art tag is the only way to do it, just as I have been trying to explain nicely to you from the beginning of this thread, and you are still in denial and accusing the messenger? That's indeed beyond comprehension. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reread your misinformed and false aspersions above, on Jim's talk page and your wikimedia complaint again. Not nice. On next steps, I am okay with the "PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923" suggestion. The due process is that you can either edit the files and update the categories, or you can individually nominate any images whose license categories you want to be expanded / updated / deleted and some admin/volunteer will then update it with a bot or other better way. You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Consider following the due process and waiting till wikimedia discusses/updates the upload template issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations
Please be informed that your accusations of copyvio against an image I had uploaded on Commons, have been found to be totally unfounded. I can only urge you to be more careful in your accusations, and respect a bit more the contributions of other users of good standing (here also Talk:Ajanta Caves). Some apology would be welcome... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually it is the other way around. You have made numerous false accusations against me, all dismissed by admins. But I don't mind it, because I trust it was with good faith and the best interest of the wiki project (I do mind you pestering me, rather than following the due process). Raising concerns, submitting evidence and admin guidance / review is the due process. My concern raised 2+ weeks ago was carefully submitted, and it is inappropriate for you to presume otherwise. As the wikimedia admin asked you recently, after your repeat filings, "let it go". Now I ask you, please let it go and drop the stick. Please stop pestering me on my talk page. Please use it only to post mandatory notices required by wikipedia/wikimedia due process. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Ms Sarah Welch, of the two Commons administrators who commented on the question of your copyrights, one has confirmed that your images should be tagged PD-ART, and the other has clearly directed that "Ms Sarah Welch should correctly tag the photos of paintings as PD-Art." . But you are still in denial? These results clearly show that I was right to point out, in the interest of Wikipedia, that you had copyright violations issues, but, sorry again, you were wrong in accusing me (here). By the way, I recommend you to correct your copyright tags as requested by Commons administrators: it is not the responsibility of other Wikipedians to clean-up your copyright issues, contrary to what you are strangely suggesting above. It is no big deal if you act now, but if you don't and knowingly keep breaching the copyrights of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and refuse to follow the requests of Administrators, I am afraid it might become an issue. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems like you have trouble comprehending three wikimedia admins who stated that there is "no breach of copyrights" in any case. You continue to follow the script in your head, rather than read what the multiple admins have explained and why it is not copyright breach. You continuing to stalk me and make the same "unfounded accusations", pester me after admins have explained this to you, suggest you have a behavioral issue. Let it go, please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please, you are the one who is having problems with your copyright tags, it's no reason to attack others. Where do you see three admins saying that there is "no breach of copyrights"??? The only one I know is Jim at the beginning, but your explanations to him were rather misleading. Finally all of them have concluded that your copyright claims were inappropriate. So please correct your tags, rather than keep denying: this is totally absurd !!!! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Let it go. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the "Let it go" guy is not an administrator. Just correct your tags according to the request that actual Admins are making to you... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

More copyright violations
It seems now that you are copyrighting in your name (CC 4.0 Author:Ms Sarah Welch as in here) your crops of images which are under PD-ART (but that you are still mistakenly tagging PD, above discussion) as here. There are several such cases. This literally means that you are offering these images to the world (CC licenses), whereas they are only PD-ART (free in the US and US-based websites only), provided that they cite you as the author (CC rules). This is both infringing the copyrights of the museum and the photographer outside of the US, and you are in effect masquerading as the author of their work. You can resolve this, again, by using the PD-ART licence rather than the CC license. Are you ready to resolve this on your own, or should I go to the Administrator notice board again? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken again. This time about what CC4.0 and derivative work means, when why we must use CC licenses on derivative works. Please escalate this and any other per due process/channels wherever you wish. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

HAMPI GA
Good work on Hampi GA, the article was already in good condition. which one would be the next for GA or do you have any article in mind for possible FA! ? --Shrikanthv (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to you, and a big thanks again to for the GOCE effort prior to the GA nom. There is a pipeline of UNESCO world heritage sites and important monuments-related, relatively high reader traffic articles, needing GOCE polish followed by GA noms. Your help would be most appreciated, at least in pre-review and then GA noms, if and when your time permits:
 * Ellora Caves: GOCE complete, ready for your review and then GA nom
 * Pattadakal: GOCE in progress, GA nom to follow
 * Brihadisvara Temple: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Brihadeeswarar Temple, Gangaikonda Cholapuram: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list) (already nom GOCE/GA)
 * Airavatesvara Temple: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Aihole: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Chennakeshava Temple, Belur: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Hoysaleswara Temple: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Meenakshi Temple: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Golden Temple: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * Konark Sun Temple: needs GOCE polish before GA nom (one can only nominate 2 articles in the pending list)
 * There is no rush, of course. Slow and steady works for me, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please hold off on nom any of these for a few weeks. The articles have some technical/non-English architectural terms that need w/linking or explanation. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing no problem Shrikanthv (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your removal of image and video from article - Jhatka
Sorry, I could not understand the reason why you removed the image and the video. I went through the link but still couldn't figure out. Could you kindly help me understand, please? BengaliHindu (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * BengaliHindu: We discussed images-issue in WP:INDIA few months ago (check the archives). The consensus was, with an admin participating, that an image must meet, particularly in a sensitive article, the WP:V and WP:RS guidelines just like we demand for text. Backdoor OR with images and videos is as problematic, as frontdoor OR with words. Further, an image should also meet MOS:IMAGES guidelines (due and relevance guideline, an article is not a photo album, not every 'possibly related' or 'indirectly related to subject' or interesting photo or etc belongs in an encyclopedic article) and the images we select must consider overall content guidelines such as NPOV. The photo and video you added breaches all these. There are images uploaded to wikimedia that the uploader personally claims is halal method / jhatka method in their neighborhood. But, personal testimony for a photo or video =/= an externally published, peer-reviewed reliable source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, got it. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)