User talk:Ms Sarah Welch/Archive 6

Talk:Jainism/GA7
This is something you should probably have a look at. Pankaj has, again, nominated an important Jainism article without performing the necessary overhaul. Vanamonde (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?
"Can't find" - you haven't looked. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Chaitya =/= Gavaksha. We have two separate articles! Lets continue the discussion on Talk:Gavaksha please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hampi
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Pattadakal
Hello, I've finally completed my copy edit of this article. Apologies that it's taken quite some time to get through it all. The article was quite long and in some places the text was quite disjointed. I've marked the request as closed at GOCE, but please feel free to ping me or drop a message on my TP is any additional copy editing is required. I watchlist all the articles, and their associated talk pages, I copy edit to keep an eye out for vandalism or unsourced insertions. Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bhakti movement
There seem to have been a lot of changes since you last edited the Bhakti movement article in July, and not all of them look good. I am hampered by a lack of access to sources but you can see a bunch of them in this diff. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will review those edits today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between summarizing something and citing something?
I was not summarizing Hudson. I was citing something within what Hudson wrote. These are two different things. Why does one have to summarize every article or book?VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To be continued at Talk:Bhagavad Gita. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

SPI
Heads up re Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Bbb23: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ms Sarah Welch!


Happy New Year! Ms Sarah Welch, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Haritdeep Singh (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Haritdeep Singh: Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Konark Sun Temple
Hello, Ms Sarah Welch – As you can see, I have completed the copy-edit you requested at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. To save time, I left quite a few "clarification needed" tags with accompanying notes/questions which can be removed when the issues are resolved. If you would prefer (in the future) that I leave these kinds of comments and questions on your talk page, I'd be glad to. Just let me know. Also, let me know if you need any help wording a sentence as you work to make things clearer. After you have finished dealing with the issues I raised, I'd be glad to read through the article once more. Best regards, and Happy New Year! – Corinne (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Corinne: Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you as well. I will work on those clarify tags this week to the extent I can. Some of the content in the Konark Sun Temple article is legacy. So I may remove or restate some. Another read through would be very helpful, much appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the sources and cleared those clarify tags. Thanks once again for your copyediting effort. You are very helpful as always. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi
Copy edited for use of standard English as requested. You may want to note my comments on the talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram copyedit

 * Miniapolis: Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Reviews
, I began a GA review in December, after Chiswick Chap mentioned that there is a backlog at WP:GAN that needs some help. I have two questions: would one of you please take a look at this-GA-review; am I generally on the right track with our procedures and protocols with a GA review. Second, it seems the nominator SageCandor has been away from wikipedia since August 2017 after nominating quite a few articles for a GA review. Do we have a wait time guideline for a review? The previous reviewer waited for 7 days in December before failing Sagecandor's nomination probably because the review concerns had not been addressed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to look over the GA review at the moment, but FWIW, it's quite appropriate to provide detailed comments, leave a review on hold for a week, and then fail it if the nominator does not return to address them. I've often left things on hold for even longer, but generally only after a specific request for more time by the nominator. Placing something on hold indefinitely, while waiting for the nominator, is not helpful in my opinion. The comments you leave can be worked on once the nominator returns, and a renomination is often easy to review. Vanamonde (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, TPS, and happy new year to you., the GA review looks absolutely fine; dezinformatsiya seems indeed much in the news at the moment (and I had happy fun getting maskirovka to GA, but that's another story). As Vanamonde says, if you get no reply from the nominator, better just fail it after a week. You can always leave a note to the effect that you'll be happy to take up the reins later if they resubmit it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , Thanks both. The maskirovka article is a fascinating, superbly written article, Chiswick Chap. I hope to help clear, hopefully nurture and approve, many more GAN noms! So much backlog, we need more reviewers indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, normally, around the holidays/New Year, I would allow more time than the usual seven days, because people can travel at this time of year and not always be connected to (or even on) Wikipedia during such times. However, since SageCandor has not edited since August, I see no need to allow any more than the seven days, and I think you can close this now if you wish. While people sometimes are prompted to return after a long absence, it's not all that common, and I fear in this case that the health issues alluded to at the top of their talk page may have caused this extended absence. As Chiswick Chap notes, if you're willing to take it up again should they resubmit it, you can always say so in your closing remarks. Note that as a reviewer you can decide how long to keep a nomination open once you've posted your review: it doesn't have to be a week (and indeed, if it looks like a week's work wouldn't fix all the problems, it can be failed at that point), and it can be much longer, but the thought behind "seven days", as I understand it, is that because a fair number of editors may only work once or twice a week, seven days gives them a chance to respond to a ping or a post or a review. I don't know whether you've reviewed the entire GA instructions page, which has information for both nominators and reviewers, and links to other useful documents. Incidentally, there is no requirement that a review be placed on hold while waiting for nominator response; it can simply remain on review. A benefit to doing so is that it serves as a reminder to the nominator, since a second message, this time about the hold, is placed on their talk page at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you just attempted to put the article on hold. However, it didn't take: the bot generates a new WP:GAN page every 20 minutes, posting it if there are any changes, based on the various article talk pages and their GA nominee templates, and the GAN page is now back to showing the nomination under review, not on hold. Those GA instructions I alluded to above give a step-by-step of what to edit to put an article on hold; that's what you'll need to do for the hold to take and, not incidentally, post a message to SageCandon's page, which I'm assuming is why you decided to put it on hold in the first place. The specific instructions section is WP:GANI. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is indeed what I thought may be the best thing to do here. The link to WP:GANI is helpful, much appreciated. Please keep an eye and let me know if I miss any due procedures. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh! Last time I was looking for the template on the GA review talk page; I should have looked at the article's talk page. My bad. A lesson learnt. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tigawa
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Para Brahman
Hey there, I just discovered that two sections of Para Brahman namely Viashnism and Shiva and Shakti philosophy were badly written with Improper references which I removed. It would be great if you would add some content there. Thanks!!!! Anmolbhat (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Anmolbhat: I will review it in the coming weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Tropical vs SideReal Year
Sir,

In one of my edits on Makar Sankranti page, I requested to look at Sidereal and Tropical Years and difference between them. That will be help us to zero down on the different between Makar Sankrtanti date and Winter solstice date.

I do not want to indulge into undo war. But reason of the difference in Makar Sankrtanti date and Winter solstice date is not acceptable. Provide references of news and articles does not help. Reference should be authentic and scientific. Just looking Sidereal and Tropical Years will help a lot.

Thank you. Sandeep Dixit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixitsandeep (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Darkest Night
You are calling December 21st the darkest night of the year. Where it is longest night ( in northern hemisphere of earth), in southern hemisphere 21 December is longest day.

You really need to understand Astronomy a bit more to write on dates and calendars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixitsandeep (talk • contribs)


 * Wikilinking is fine and welcome, but you have been adding unsourced blog-like content and warring to restore links to unreliable websites in Makar Sankranti article. If you cannot find a WP:RS for the content you wish to contribute, please do not add such content. Content must be verifiable in reliable published sources. To wiki-link you need double brackets (such as ... ), not single (such as [...]). Welcome to wikipedia and let us continue this discussion on Talk:Makar Sankranti, the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

complexity of earth-sun relative movement
Quote from Makar Sankranti page.

"Being a festival that celebrates the solar cycle, it almost always falls on the same Gregorian date every year (January 14), except in rare years when the date shifts by a day for that year, because of the complexity of earth-sun relative movement"

What complexity are you referring to? Do you have good reference here?

Reasons of Shift in dates: The reason of Shit in short run is Leap Year time (0.25 day backwards per year and 1 day forward on leap year). Reason of shift in long run (22nd December to 14 Jan ) is difference between sidereal year and tropical year.

-Sandeep Dixit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixitsandeep (talk • contribs)


 * To be continued in Talk:Makar Sankranti. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

'''Apart from providing reference, look at quality of references research papers surely less than research papers. Also please edit what you understand. Do not go for subjects beyond your expertized.'''

What reference can be better than this. http://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10152140961606675.pdf

Dixitsandeep (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is about Makar Sankranti, you're quite late with your "warning," which actually seems to be a personal attack.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Smarta is a hybrid of Srauta and Tantra
You once said it was strange for me to call Smarta a hybrid between the extremes of Srauta and Tantra. Well Alexis Sanderson describes Smarta as the "middle ground" between the "opposite ends" of Srauta and Tantra.

"Though the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism they shared the character of being specialists of intensified ritual above the more relaxed middle ground of the smārtas (the followers of smṛti). pg. 662 HERE" VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson: That statement by Alexis Sanderson does not mean "smarta were a hybrid between the extremes of srauta and tantra". Sanderson is merely stating, srauta and tantra traditions have been more intense ritual specialists, unlike the more relaxed smartas. The word "hybrid" means "a kind of mix, blend", it is a loaded word, and inappropriate here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you understand by this: "the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism". You are skipping the first idea in the sentence.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * VictoriaGrayson: No. I see the sentence you quoted on page 662, Saivism and the tantric traditions chapter of Clarke's book. No where is Sanderson stating, or implying, that "Smarta a hybrid between the extremes of Srauta and Tantra". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on what this phrase means: "the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism".<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b>
 * , I know nothing about the topic area, but if this sentence is all we have, then the word "hybrid" looks like it's pulling it in a different direction. It implies that the smartas used and combined features derived from the other two schools. Is that the case? Wording like "middle ground of the spectrum" seems to suggest that it isn't. – Uanfala (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats not the important part. She doesn't want to acknowledge that "the śrauta and the Tantric occupied the opposite ends of the spectrum of Hinduism". I am not attached to the word hybrid.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "hybrid" was clearly part of your argument—it's right there in the title of the this section—and it is one that doesn't seem to fly. It is not unusual that things in the middle of a spectrum would not partake of either extreme, much less be a hybrid of them. I would like to suggest that you drop this argument, as Ms Sarah Walsh is now blocked, and your claim that "she doesn't want to acknowledge" is putting words in her mouth. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When has MSW ever acknowledged in any way the existence of the extremes or the spectrum you are talking about? I'll drop the argument, but you are also putting words in her mouth.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please note that the discussion started at Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado has now been moved to WP:ANI and you may wish to contribute there. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A response or explanation from your side would be most welcome, actually.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Some unsolicited advice: come clean. I don't know the details of the history here, but the community looks far more favorably upon folks who can admit and learn from past mis-steps, if any, than those who ignore them or dissemble instead. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned on the SPI page that you will provide more details if requested. I would appreciate if you would wikipedia-email those details to me, or a link to it in case it is already somewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather than using diffs that suggest ‘this edit is similar to that one’ I take large blocks of edits and analyse them for similarities and differences, and then compare any findings against a random selection of other editors. It is quite painstaking – and I don’t think anything will be gained by discussing specifics here.


 * You may of course appeal your block. In such circumstance - note for the guidance of any patrolling admin – please see both the archived WP:SPI case and the related discussion at ANI.  Ben   Mac  Dui  11:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Way forward
Though I'm a bit surprised by this turn of events, I must say that the evidence presented looks strong. If the other accounts are actual socks of yours, you should come clean on this talk page, clearly state that you won't do it again, and then request an unblock. Given that the other accounts in question haven't edited in a long while, you might be able to successfully edit again, perhaps after a short hiatus. If you haven't been socking, the path is murkier. It is hard to prove that you haven't been socking and there doesn't seem to be any easy way to come back without an admission. Perhaps someone with more experience watching this page can suggest something?--regentspark (comment) 03:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; this is probably the best advice anyone of us can give. Step over your pride, and keep yourself in balance.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a bit surprised, too. I can't argue with what appears to be fairly clear but RegentsPark has it right regarding the way forward. Or not if, as they suggest, it actually was not you. Either way, it is a mess. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you all. One request... just like you asked Joshua Jonathan and I not to post on the user talk page of Js82 in the past, as well as advised Js82 that they "have the right to ask anyone to stay away from your talk page and they have to comply (except for notifications)" (e.g here). I request you to ask Victoria Grayson, Lorstaking and Js82 to stay away from my talk page (except for notifications), and I request that you please enforce their compliance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure MSW. You have the right to ask people not to post on your talk page (except for required notices and warnings). please do not post comments on MSW's page except for the following exceptions: required notices, warnings, or reasonable comments on an unblock request. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 12:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * RP: Thank you. Given 1, the history such as 2, the section involving Victoria Grayson above, etc, this will be helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Kryn note
Thank you for this note. You are a prolific contributor with some 95,000+ edits, one of many I admire here. Fwiw, neither would "reverse reincarnation" through a dormant account be right nor feasible. I never had and do not have any wikipedia account's password other than this one. I am considering filing an appeal, per these guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really don't know why you've been blocked indefinitely. Your ApostleVonColorado account (a great name) was never blocked, although maybe it had a few doppelgangers running about. Then you stopped using it in September, 2012 and came back 14 months later as Ms Sarah Welch, never resurrecting VonColorado even though you say it's on the same password. The over five year period between shows you have adjusted, learned whatever lesson was needed, and then brought Sarah into full compliance and productivity. The "big deal" factor seems strong with this one. A slap on the wrist is warranted, and that slap has been applied (along with invisible trouts). And your interest in appealing further likely means that you want to come back as the productive editor you have been in the past. I would hope a wandering admin would wander by and let you off with time served, just knock on the window of your cave to get their attention. Since an unblocked VonColoardo and its spawn departed, and Ms Sarah Welch emerged 14-months later, I can only believe that this itself is a case of reincarnation. I honor your work in your productive new form. This block is starting to look silly. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Randy, I believe "other than this one" meant "other than the MSW account". So no connection with the AVC account is indicated here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but almost no reincarnates remember their previous incarnation, unless they are forced to pick their favorite objects among a group of someone else's favorite objects and then make a good guess. Is the whole sticking point that MSWelch won't admit something that others see as obvious but is not proven and that MSW claims is incorrect? Amnesia explains it all. Hit on the head with some loose karma and then awoke anew. Kidding aside, major productive editors who are accused, even with proof, who have mended their ways in-between then and now (especially after years and years of now) should be sent to a neutral corner for awhile, but how long is long enough? The project needs their input and knowledge back. Wikipedia should not be self-destructive, so if such a major editor wants back in, even with amnesia or whatever went down, slaughter the fatted calf (well, maybe not in this case), break out the wine, and party their return. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * RK: I love your sense of humor, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Preparation for an Appeal
@Ms Sarah Welch, I've removed all the material here. This is not the place for it. You can prepare your appeal off-wiki. The history of what you've done so far is still here, so you haven't lost anything. I strongly recommend that any appeal not be the length of a book or no reviewing administrator is likely to read it. If you have any questions, you may post them here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sad
I am sad to see that your account is blocked. I do not have checkuser right to go into those details, but, you know that I respected you as an editor. --Titodutta (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tittodutta: Thank you. I do not know much about checkuser, but behavioral investigation is best in the stale cases, particularly when there is the serial abuse such as the case of OccultZone-Bladesmulti. OZ-socks have not edited in about 3 years, and it is likely that their IP provider, device, browser and possibly where the sockmaster now lives is different. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Note to User:Capitals00, User:My Lord, User:Winged Blades of Godric
Capitals00: Since you have been a part of the Kalki dispute in December (see its talk page), exactly when the SPI case was filed, and other issues with you which will be a part of my submission to the ARB Committee, I herewith ask you, per admin RegentsPark's note above, to not post on my talk page.

@My Lord (formerly Anmolbhat): You too, for the same Kalki article and other reasons, please do not edit war or post on my talk page. You are requested to respect RegentsPark's instructions above.

Winged Blades of Godric: while you are unlike Capitals00 above, this case is complex. Since you are not an admin, and admit you do not know the circumstances, it will be best if you do not post on my talk page anything other than notices required by wiki-policies (see RegentsPark comment in the section above). I am preparing my appeal, which I am now certain I will file in a timely fashion, please note that I am preparing it per guidance I have received from an admin. This guideline states, "the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Everything significant I have posted on my talk page, since admin RegentsPark note, has been for the appeal. Yet, with 28,000+ edits and contributions, I am sensitive to the emotional issues to some plus the wiki-norms involved here, and I plan to prepare my appeal arguments offline. I will use this talk page to get guidance from the admins on the appeal process as well as other information from experienced editors involved in the past SPI/ANI in similar cases.

Thank you all for your cooperation. Admin RegentsPark and admin Titodutta: please note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, yes, you can ask people to not post on your page, but I'm not sure you're aware that you are also within your rights to remove any post you wish from the page. The poster does not get to put it back, per WP:DRC. This restoration was consequently a mistake, and I have warned the user. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Bishonen: Thanks for the helpful note. I will link this note from you, when appropriate, after I delete personal attacks and misrepresentations of what I stated or contributed from my talk page, or other silliness from non-admin users masquerading as "advice". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock
On another page someone asked if ArbCom could comment on the basis for unblocking this editor. The Arbitration Committee reviewed the appeal from this block and considered both publicly available information as well as non-public information that was not available to the blocking administrator. After a careful review, we concluded that the block was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Heyyy..., this calls for a big celbration! Welcome back, Narimani. We really missed you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Plus 1 :) --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is fantastic news. Welcome back. First Light (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you., and many others: Thanks for your notes or other comments on my talk page and elsewhere. I am delighted that the ARB Committee accepted and reviewed my trimmed-yet-still-very-long, line-by-line SPI appeal with non-public information and a lot of new information, over many weeks. It was a long process, one necessary for a diligent review. All of you in the list above, and many others, your words encouraged me to prepare and file the lengthy appeal. I am happy to be back and I look forward to our agreements and disagreements, as the case deserves, whatever it takes to keep building and improving Wikipedia, to the best our abilities and conscience, just like in the past! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well good, welcome back, and thank you for caring enough about Wikipedia to stick with your determination to regain your right to edit here. An epic defense. I only read part of it during preparation, but the detail was unique in what I've seen of requests such as yours. It may be studied in classes on Wikipedia in the future, or at least at one college in the Midwest where someone will write a masters thesis based on it (and/or the screenplay). Nice work. Wikipedia is the better for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good wishes. --Titodutta (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So glad. -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Jainism-related sockpuppetry for JBM1971
Hi Ms Sarah Welch. I don't know how much you've noticed, but there's some edit-warring and sockpuppetry going on in Jainism-related articles. I'm searching for anyone who might have noticed it long term, or is knowledgeable enough to sort out and clean up what's going on. I've not found any detailed discussion so far, and am assuming it's all related to Sockpuppet investigations/JBM1971. I've repeatedly seen your editing in articles where it's been happening, so thought you'd be able to help. (You may have some thoughts on the SPI report as well given your recent experience, but I'm much more concerned about the article content.) --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Jainism-related articles are indeed another space, just like Sikhism, where we have had long-term disruption. I took a quick look and yes JBM1971 has been disruptive as evidenced by their insertion of strange content, with stranger sources such as causes.com such as here and an WP:SPS here. This soapboxing by Jainism internet warriors parallels the soapboxing by Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism internet warriors in ARBIPA space. FWIW, admin and I have struggled with this in the past in Jainism space. For example, see (e.g. see this). I will try to keep an eye, thanks for the note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * Thought you'd want to know about this. Lots of ip's involved as well as the four editors in the current SPI report. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Karna
Hi MSW. When you get the chance, could you take a look at this article? A lot of this material is also at and I'm not sure whether we are the chicken or the egg. (BTW, your talk page is semi-protected. Do you want to keep it that way?)--regentspark (comment) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I quick looked. Not sure whether that blog is the chicken or the egg, but it sure is non-RS and illustrates the serious issues with the Karna article. With exceptions such as the WP:RS by professors James Fitzgerald and late JAB van Buitenen, so much in it is either sourced to Youtube/blogs and cites such as a "website dedicated to Karna" or just unsourced. Needs a thorough scrub and rewrite of all the fluff and baffling content. I will do a quick clean now, will try a better review later after a cleanup of the higher traffic Diwali etc articles, for which I am gathering some RS. These also have some issues such as Jamaica appearing prominently in the lead before India/Nepal!, along with other fluff and an unencyclopedic style. I promised Bish quite a while ago I will review Diwali etc articles after she mentioned that to me. Yes, please continue the semi-protection of this talk page. Bish added it thankfully after "bitch / prostitute / anti-semitic personal attacks" and such persistent harassment. Thanks for both the notes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * MSW, I saw that began the task of cleaning up the Karna article. That would be really welcome news because over the last 5-10 years the article has been plagued with one or more groups of, may I say, obsessive editors who edit (and edit-war) almost daily and relentlessly turn the page into an in-universe retelling of the Mahabharata. There is ample sock/meatpuppetry going on too.
 * Back in 2013, User:Dharmadhyaksha and I made some attempt to clean up the article (see "Cutting short" and the next couple of sections in the talkpage archives) but after some initial work (see this version, which is at least shorter), we drifted off and entropy took over. I may have some sources I had collected but not incorporated into the article still lying around on my harddrive. If you'd like, I can email them to you. I won't be able to devote much time to editing the article itself, but will try to lend a hand at the edges. All the best if/when you decide to take up the task.
 * I am involved but for any clean-up effort to succeed, will need admin(s) to keep a watch and hand out blocks/topic-bans liberally. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back Abecedare! --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Those old links for the Karna article are helpful. Thank you. I just wiki-emailed you a request for those old sources in case you are able to locate them on your hard drive. No rush. I will get around to it in August or September probably. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Will email you the PDFs this week. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sent. Abecedare (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanskrit article
I just noticed that the Sanskrit article had undergone a GA review back in 2016 and User:Maunus had some useful comments that would be good to keep in mind given your current efforts to overhaul the article. Also, after your work is done, it may be a good idea to put the article through a similar process to get independent reviews and arrive at a stable, quality-version for this important article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am surprised this version of the article was nominated for GA. "(Sanskrit is) a philosophical language in (...) Sikhism (...)". Unsourced fringe / POV-y claims such as that one is what triggered Kautilya3 to mention the issues and this overhaul's start. Maunus was spot on in the GA review. I am reflecting on what to do about the post-history sections of the article, doing some checks. I am leaning towards an overhauled coverage of those sections to a format similar to the recent Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism Vol 2, but I want to read a bit more, context and all, before the cleanup. If Kautilya3, you or talk page stalkers have suggestions, that would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken a look at the complete Brill's article on Sanskrit but looking just at its table of contents, I'm not sure that it would be a good model for the wikipedia article as a whole because it does not seem to cover much about Sanskrit as a language (phonology, grammar, vocabulary etc). Those parts should IMO form roughly half of the main 'Sanskrit article' (cf English language or template for language article). Fortunately, those sections should be less contentious than the history/use sections you have already worked on and Burrow (or similar textbooks) should provide more than enough content; it may however need some linguistic background and understanding to adequately select and summarize the material. Abecedare (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I did not mean the "Sanskrit texts" part, I meant those parts that discuss the "Sanskrit language" (pages 16-18). The link you gave is helpful. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Samsara
I'm reading a book by a Belgian philosopher who argues against metaphysical interpretations of Buddhist concepts, such as karma and rebirth. According to this author, the Buddha sought escape from mundane suffering, caused and contunued by desires. You remember our struggles at 4nt, of course? Nevertheless, I think his ideas make sense. Now, I just looked-up samsara; the Dutch Wiki mentio s that for Shankara, samsara was also the ordinary world of continuous agony; and it says that in many Buddhist traditions, samsara also refers to daily life. This makes sense, in the context of this Belgian philosopher. Do you know more about this kind of interpretation of samsara? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting blog. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * JJ: I skimmed through the blog's first page and it is interesting indeed. Yeah, I remember our struggles with the sincerely passionate, text-wall Robert Walker. Samsara of our daily lives and this ordinary world (or shall we say, our extraordinary world!), as well as those about the extraordinary pre-life and after-life in the Indic texts – and southeast/east Asian texts – is quite elaborate and essential to their axiology. Much like the Middle Eastern concept of the Judgment Day, with all the weaknesses and unpersuasive linearity. The Buddha, along with the Mahavira and the Vedic thinkers, suggest the early Indic literature, sought liberation from the mundane and supramundane dukkha. They came up with different answers... which would have been nice to know for the ancients: so many ways to lessen all suffering, smile no matter what life (or afterlife) throws at you! I will try to find some samsara literature, then email. Of course, modern thinkers and interpreters can interpret everything in their own personal lovely ways. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Mass delete
When I remove substantial amount of sub-standard/unsourced/dubious, but not clearly useless, text from an article I usually find it useful to (1) copy the deleted text to the article talk-page if its just a para or two; or (2) adding a link at the talkpage to the pre-deleted version witha short note, if the deleted text is longer. That way other editors can easily check if there is anything worth recovering (I know that the deleted text remains in the article history, but its not often that one goes looking there). I know of no guideline saying that this is the way to do things. Just a personal practice I thought I'd share when I saw this edit. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC).


 * Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hope to ban this account soon.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Reported for removal of referenced content. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, just a quick note to say that I've seen the report at ANI, but as it seems obvious to everybody but Jujhar.pannu that your editing has been fine, I haven't bothered to comment there. Should these sort of ridiculous allegations resurface in future, I'll be happy to chip in, as and if needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RexxS: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RexxS: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mars
Hello. I noticed your comment at stating "Why not merge this with Life_on_Mars#Habitability section?, or distill any new sources […]. I want to let you know that I follow these subjects closely so I copied and saved the article's references in my PC before it was deleted, so that I can screen them for recent and notable events that can be cited elsewhere in Wikipedia — in the context they were written.  :-)   Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Not just for doing this, but also for all your Mars/Astro-*/other contributions. Sorry, you had to suffer through all that RW's behavior in the past alone. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Diwali copy edit in progress
Hi Ms Sarah Welch, as you no doubt will see, throughout my copy edit I am doing quite a lot of trimming and rewriting of the text in to somewhat drier and more, in my eyes, encyclopedic text. While I am doing my best to ensure I don't lose the meaning of the text, I am aware that my copy editing can lead to some material being removed. If, whenever you happen to read my edits, you come across parts that you feel I may have over trimmed, do feel free to drop a note on my TP or on the article TP with your concerns. Blackmane (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The copyedits are most welcome. I am away from my office and very busy with some RL commitments these days. I hope to take a look at your changes in light of the sources in about 2 weeks, sooner if possible. Please keep going meanwhile. Thanks again to the GOCE team and you for the good work you all do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

renaming Annamalaiyar Temple
Hi Sarah Welch, I had requested a move of the page Annamalaiyar Temple to Arunachalesvara Temple. Request your suggestion on this at aggi007(talk) 06:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Good!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Warning: Disruptive edit (October 2018)
Some edits such as  on Adultery seems to be disruptive (you may not delete reliable sources for no reasons at all). If I have made any mistake, elaborate on that part that you have deleted. Thank you! Onkuchia  (talk)  12:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You are also advised not to misinterpret, synthesize the sources. Refer this  Onkuchia   (talk)  13:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, your recent edit on Fornication (which is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR) is actually restoration of the edits of an account that was blocked as your sock per the SPI linked in the backlog. I find this really suspicious. Though you can provide if you have some reasonable clarification for this. Onkuchia   (talk)  13:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can know how to look at the backlog, you must also know more or can if are you here in good faith to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Given your behavior in content disputes with other editors and me in various Wikipedia articles, please note the following: Other than the required notices in accordance with Wikipedia policies, please do not post "I find this really suspicious" or any other commentary, or questions of any kind on my talk page again. Doing so may lead to limitations to or a block of your editing privileges. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Article development
Hi Ms Sarah Welch, please develop articles of different sub schools of Vedanta and their founders Vishishtadvaita (Ramanuja), Dvaita Vedanta (Madhvacharya), Bhedabheda Dvaitadvaita (Nimbarka), Achintya Bheda Abheda (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), Shuddhadvaita (Vallabha). Most of the articles are written poorly with ill-sourced since you are an expert in Hindu-related article I request you to develop these articles (no hurry take your time).--115.96.130.13 (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Hopping IP: I saw the similar message on Joshua Jonathan's talk page in early September, which prolly you left. You also remind me of a blocked editor, and if you are the same person, please quit leaving these repeated requests or evading the sanctions. FWIW, JJ, others and I have already worked on some of these articles (e.g. Ramanuja, Madhvacharya etc). Study the edit history. Those articles are generally okay, though there is always room for improvement and the need for reversing any recent vandalism/disruption. If you have specific concerns or suggestions for any of the articles you list, and assuming you are not an editor with active sanctions by wiki-admins, please leave your comments on the respective article's talk page for quicker attention. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Maurya Empire
You have recently done some amazing improvements to Karna. Thanks for the efforts. The article Maurya Empire also lacks sources and citations, would you care to have a look? Thanks in advance. Capankajsmilyo(Talk 12:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC) you knowledge on hinduism is very vast.how you got interested in this puranic dharma?Krishna anand singh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

azerty Krishna anand singh (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC) (struck by MSW, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!
For the editing done on lord Krishna article. Krishna anand singh (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Heart Sutra
I've just read your comment on Heart Sutra talk page re: blog, newspapers, etc., for historical information. Originally I wanted to use an ordinary newspaper which made this announcement - but I traced it to what I believe is the source of the information - which is the National Cultural Administration website. I think they are the governmental entity in PRC which manages the Fangshan Stone Sutra site as well as all other historical sites. Are they acceptable as a source? They are announcing the results of researchers located at the Fangshan Stone Sutra site. Hanbud (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC) The announcement besides the introduction at the beginning is a quote from a researcher. Hanbud (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Government entities may or may not be acceptable, nor the best source for history and religion, given PRC's stance on these subjects. Let us try to find and focus on peer-reviewed scholarship. Also, let us keep this discussion to the Heart Sutra article's talk page please as five, possibly more editors are now watching and discussing it. That article is weak, in part an unreadable mess. That cannot go on forever. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Is पाटलिपुत्र a sock of Tirgil34?
While investigating recent activities by Tirgil34 i came across an excellent investigation carried out by you last year regarding sockpuppetry by पाटलिपुत्र. Tirgil34 and पाटलिपुत्र make similar edits at Xionites, Kujula Kadphises and Mihirakula, add obscure Tamga images from a book by the Kazakh Turkologist Yury Zuev, and engage in similar selective honesty when caught socking. Could पाटलिपुत्र be another Tirgil34 sock? Because of your experience with पाटलिपुत्र and the topics he edits your insight in this matter could be of great help. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Krakkos. No relation at all, don't even know who this is. Not even the same country per User:Bbb23, who already closed your frivolous request . (Apologies for disturbing your Talk Page Ms Sarah Welch) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * These are the same type of denials as earlier. Unfortunately, it appears that the case was closed without the behavioral evidence being reviewed. A quick look at the above diffs will reveal the obvious truth. Krakkos (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र is deceptively trying to use this notification as justification for a block. Krakkos (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User:神风
There are other sock accounts of पाटलिपुत्र by their own admission, such as the older 神风 (Japanese script, Kamakaze = suicide bomber). This is inactive to the best of my knowledge (I have not checked other wiki sister projects, I don't have the time nor does that interest us in eng-wikipedia). Technically, per past Bbb23's statements on how to deal with a sock farm, only the oldest account should remain. Fixing all this requires some paperwork and I just don't have the interest in pursuing it at this stage (I do support पाटलिपुत्र / 神风 / socks to be given a second chance, even though I have been a victim of their harassment). I do not know anything about the Tirgil34 case and I suggest you trust Bbb23's findings and wisdom. Don't obsess about SPI proceedings on this. Let it go. Rather, focus on building wikipedia and spotting any systematic content disruption with solid evidence, then if appropriate, you may request sanctions against one or more systemically disruptive accounts. The recent suggestions of on your talk page may be worth considering, if and when the evidence is comprehensive and compelling. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "suicide", but "bombing" is certainly a good description of what he does.
 * Look at the before- and after-versions of these edits for example, and he is still going on. And, if you remove one undue sentence, he throws a fit.
 * Here we learn that Panini was an Achaemenid subject and so were Kautily and Chandragupta Maurya. Several "close followers" of Buddha were too. The day has not yet come for Buddha to turn into an Achaemenid subject, but I am sure it will! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * [Deleted पाटलिपुत्र comments; पाटलिपुत्र: once again I ask you, please do not post anything on my talk page other than any required procedural notice]. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not going to get into content discussion with you here on MSW's talk page and bother her with daily pings. If you want to discuss, you know where to do it.
 * If you indeed cared about "quality content", you would have engaged with very pertinent questions that have been posed to you on your talk page, or at least thought about how your "quality content" fails to answer them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Kartarpur
Hi Sarah, according to this book, Kartarpur - now in the news - was the birth place of Sikhism. Is that true? How come none of our pages mention that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some content to Kartarpur, Pakistan. Please check. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That Unistar publication is not a good source. Fringe-y, as it presents discredited hagiography as truth (Nanak in Tibet, parts of China, Sri Lanka, the Middle East, etc). A lot of mythology confused as fact, in its pages and elsewhere in that book. Chinese kept diligent records, if anything. A preacher such as Nanak would be easily recognizable as he did not have a Chinese looking face. There is zero evidence that Nanak ever was there. Setting aside such sources, yes, there is Sikh history in Kartarpur. Nanak died there. Angad was anointed there. Nanak's son started a competing sect of Sikh tradition there. But, the modern Kartarpur (Pakistan) isn't where that happened, because the River Ravi shifted and the town shifted after Nanak's death, so I have read. Both sides of the river became significant to Sikhism, later, and on the Indian side is the Dera Baba Nanak. There is also the "Kartarpur pothi", one of the oldest known Sikh manuscripts, much discussed and with some dispute. Our articles should discuss all this with scholarly sources cited, but instead we have statements such as "mingled with the Almighty" in the Dera Baba Nanak article. It and other related articles need review and update, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. Let us clean up the Kartarpur article first, and we can copy it to other pages as needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been too busy in RL with holidays and kids to help with those or other articles in Wikipedia. If you need me to locate one or more WP:RS etc, please let me know. Seasons greetings!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dhāraṇī
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Dhammakaya Movement
This is my first time doing this so apologies if this isn't the standard way to do this. Please refrain from personal attacks on the talk pages. Please see WP:PERSONAL. We can resolve content disputes without the use of such attacks. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikiman5676: There are no personal attacks by me on the Dhammakaya movement's talk page. I have tried to politely help over the last couple of weeks, but you keep stonewalling and misrepresenting community-agreed content guidelines/policies to ignore scholarship and push your personal opinions. I have merely quoted wikipedia content policies, which you either haven't read carefully or you misrepresent to push your POV/opinion/wisdom to disrupt wikipedia. Your misrepresentations, wiki-lawyering and disruption needs to stop. Instead of personal feelings, let us focus on carefully reading and summarizing what the peer-reviewed scholarly sources are actually stating. Instead of wiki-lawyering by misquoting wikipedia guidelines, your alternate option is to just politely ask for clarification or seek help on a noticeboard. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is possible to cooperate without calling editors incompetant, uninformed or saying they can't understand simple English. I encourage you to carefully read WP:PERSONAL. I have clearly presented my case on the talk page regarding WP:LABEL and there is nothing being misrepresented. If you do not know what in-text attributions are you can see WP:INTEXT. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are misrepresenting our content policies. Instead of arguing in circles, please try a noticeboard next. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Kitten are so pretty pet animals, thanks for removing the confusing icons on Template:Sindhi festivals, keep working on its related articles.

JogiAsad <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:Skyblue;">Talk   21:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Happy New Year, Ms Sarah Welch!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Ms Sarah Welch, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

 D Big X ray ᗙ  15:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * DBigXray: Thank you and same to you and your family, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Ms Sarah W, I read your "humourous articles" titles and just about peed my pants laughing, even though I am a boy, so my bladder is larger and further away from muscular contractions. It made me read your talk page, and experience sadness. I quit editing Wikipedia as an editor a few years back as the edit wars and reverts got me down. To me, it seemed like there was nowhere to go to get help. Congrats to you for figuring out how to do so.

"Unsung Hero". That's you. Have a lovely year.

184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war
Warning: Do not just revert edits from others by flagging them as vandalism. Aravind V R (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea which "edit I allegedly flagged as vandalism" that you are talking about? Suggestion: avoid casting aspersions, include edit diffs with your allegations, and please discuss any concerns you have about a particular edit on the article talk page rather than an editor's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are Most Welcome Ma'am.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Need Review
Could you please review the following page, one users repeatedly doing mistakes and adding the content which most of the people didnt find useful and needed. I request you to review and take appropriate action. Thanks in advance !!.. 2019_Indian_general_election_in_Tamil_Nadu

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesenwriter (talk • contribs)


 * If you have time, please review that TN-related article and its sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Dropping
this piece, in case you have not come across it. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks I had seen it, and the Painter's publication is another related good source from Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. You are most welcome to revise/expand the list. I hope you and others will, as time permits. Indian journalism has been and is a big mess and I am deeply troubled by their practices from our WP:RS perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the interesting things in criticial articles on paid news and private treaties is their general focus on elections and politicians only. From the WP:RS perspective, any subject (corporation, brand, product launch, bio of celebrities, NGO, social causes, ideologies plug, etc) and all aspects of the paid news and private treaties are troubling. For instance, while I have read that The Mint has adopted a code on paid news... but they do not state that The Hindustan Times group publications, including they themselves, ban all paid news and private treaties. The 2018 annual report of the HT Media, states that Hindustan Times, Mint, etc do private treaties (see pages 17-18 of their Annual report plus Anuradha Sharma's page 28 in your link above). Adopting a code... is like saying, "paid editing is okay till it is consistent with some personal code that the paid editor adopts" (which we may know or not know, agree with or disagree with). That raises a difficult series of secondary questions and I am unclear what our approach ought to be. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the focus of the sources on electoral-paid-news will be a barrier in convincing the community of the near-probable existence of similar circumstances in fields related to NCORP (which has the most rigorous criterion around the locus of intellectual independence of sources).
 * The latter point is quite interesting and merits more thoughts. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Indian general election
May i request you to take part in this discussion, Thanks Articles for deletion/Next Indian general election — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesenwriter (talk • contribs)

Hatha yoga
Hi Sarah am away so can't reply in full or edit decently but my image of mode of action of mudras and caption is well supported by both Mallinson and Singleton and as an image is hardly controversial and directly relevant to topic. I'm amazed you call it a plug as I can't imagine what ot might be plugging --- it's a summary pf medieval history. Needless to say I intend to replace it at earliest but wd like to understand yr thinking here. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Let us discuss this on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality
Sarah Welch, I am very reluctant to make any comments about any other editor because of the No Personal Attacks rule, but I am concerned that you have continually accused me of point-of-view editing, taking sides, constructing false arguments, original research, and so forth, though mostly in such broad terms (including a global tag with the phrase "POV-y") that I am unable to guess what might be the problem or what I might do to fix it: individual tags on specific phrases would be more tractable. I have, as it happens, no idea what point of view I may be supposed to have on the subject, other than that modern yoga exists, is richly documented, and has a complex history which seems to be surprising to many people (including Singleton, who documents his shock at his own discoveries). You have marked the history section as specially deplorable; all I'll say on that is that much of the text in that section is copied with attribution from Yoga or Hatha yoga, as the article needs a brief summary of those topics, and if the material is wrong, well, Wikipedia is indeed an unreliable source; but my sole intention there is to provide a summary as context.

On the word "argues", it is very possible that this has a different connotation on different sides of the Atlantic. As a Brit, I can assure you that the word is used neutrally in academia and in industry to mean "states a position based on evidence". I couldn't say whether that is more or less positive than other words I use, including "states" and "writes"; though it certainly implies a complexity which those other words do not. I can also assure you (if I didn't do this already) that I have no particular position to set out, no commercial or academic interest to further, and no side that I favour. I have edited thousands of articles for neutrality, and rescued not a few from controversy by finding sources and explaining topics clearly. I do hope that you will grant me the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this article, to which I have devoted many hours of reading and editing. That should enable us to collaborate effectively to bring the article to the quality that we both desire. With my best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Chiswick Chap: I appreciate your willingness to collaborate. I am indeed quite concerned with some of the OR, Synthesis, NPOV issues in the Modern yoga article. Our content disputes started after you alleged that there is no continuity between HY and MY, i.e. hatha yoga and modern yoga. You are free to believe whatever you wish to, but this allegation is nonsense and simply not consistent with the vast majority of mainstream academic yoga scholarship. Yet, despite my concerns, by no means assume that I feel everything you have added is just OR, etc. You have put some effort in that article and in citing your sources. Thank you. We just need to work through this. Collaboratively. This may take a few weeks, as kids, other commitments and chores limit how much time I can devote to careful reading the sources you have cited and many you haven't but are relevant (and I have access to). The article needs to reflect all the sides for NPOV and such reasons. Wikipedia articles improve when they get the scrutiny and review of other editors. That is what is happening. Please see my comments as directed on the article, not you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your concerns, which have been opaque to me up to now. I wrote that from a far country, at night, on a tiny screen, and the discontinuity, put so baldly, was stated too sharply. I had included multiple scholarly quotes on the nature of the difference, and Singleton's measured "going too far to say ... no relationship" but "radical innovation and experimentation" seems to me about right. Millions of people in yoga pants in classes doing dog pose is a long way from a solitary Nath yogin in a quiet hut with his solitary guru, both sworn to secrecy, practising the mysteries of khechari mudra and viparitakarani. Yes, there is a connection, but there's also a world of difference. I am sorry I misled you about my opinion, which is I think far more moderate than you may have imagined. I welcome scrutiny; but the article is in fact extremely thoroughly cited, and I am not pushing any personal viewpoint. Finally, the article's focus is yoga-as-exercise (and always has been, see the talk page), and we need to make that focus sharp and clear. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Diwali prayers
MSW, can you review this edit of mine? Complete removal from the article might have been a bit harsh and perhaps the basic information can be reincorporated with better placement, context and sourcing. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response, just too busy with RL. Your removal makes sense. I recall wanting to remove it too while reviewing and revising the legacy version. Perhaps something more relevant, more scholarly sourced could go in another section. I will look into it. This weekend or sometime in early August. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No hurry at all. Just thought I'd leave a note so that my deletion doesn't go down the memory hole and that, given your work on the article, you'd be better positioned than I to know if/how to integrate any of the material back. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The term Siddhachal Caves?
Thank you for your contributions to the article. I am puzzled aboput the term "Siddhachal" which I presume is being used the Urvai gate cluster. I have not seen the term being used by any Hindi/English book authors on Gwalior Jain monoliths. Do you know where the term is from? Malaiya (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is derived from "Siddha". If I remember right, it is the term in Madhya Pradesh tourism/ASI booklets and the alt name was Gwalior fort Jain collosi. The term "Siddhachal" in Jainism context appears in an Akbar-era document too, but I am unclear if that one is referring to the same rock hill as the one in Gwalior. I have some doubts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Working on article on Durga puja
Greetings! I have been working on the article on Durga Puja for the past few days. It would be of great help if you could provide with inputs to improve the article. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The later sections of the article have too much fluff and need the most attention. The celebrations in West Bengal and nearby regions deserve a comprehensive summary from scholarly sources. The Durga puja in other states and countries such as Bangladesh can be mentioned in a para or two. There is no need for separate sub-sections for each state. The article also needs a harv cleanup. Let us avoid too many images (keep just those that aid in understanding the subject per MOS:IMAGES). Keep the Dadhimati Mata Temple image, as it is the best evidence of Durga's significance by the 7th-century. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am working on the later sections, attempting to create a specific section discussing the significance of the festival as a economic/socio-cultural/political event (in my user-space). Information relevant to the same is spread out in various sections of the current version of the article. A lot of unreferenced information also exists. I also had intended to merge the sections of the various state-specific celebrations. I did the same earlier with the "celebrations beyond India" section. With regards to the images, another user has also raised the issue here. I am looking forward to discussing how to work out the same. Thank you for your help! -- Tamra vidhir  (talk)

New message from Sikh-history
Hi Fellow editor. I was wondering whether I could ask a favour. You've aided me in the past on various pages. I've been battling for a while to keep WP:Balance on the above page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism, but there appears to be persistent vandalism. I don't have as much time nowadays, and vegetarianism in Sikhism is a controversial topic. Please could you keep an eye. Many thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H  10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanamahism
Do you know about Sanamahism ? Need several reverts. Sanamahi can't be translated in Liquid Gold as Sana Hindi Term of gold while in Meetei language Sanna means Spreading as the term Sanamahi is form by adding two words Sanna + Emahi = Sanamahi. The writer that you take references is not follower of Sanamahism.. Awangba Mangang (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Awangba Mangang: We summarize what the peer-reviewed scholarship and best available RS publish. Lets discuss this on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comment is required
You might know that some of the followers of sect is doing disruptive editing in Talk:Criticism of Swaminarayan sect. They are arguing that opinion of Mahatma Gandhi’s not notable, site of BAPS says something else for Mahatma and thus, it should not be included under WP:NOTOPINION. In the same way, they want to remove criticism of Swami Dayananda and want to add justification from the william’s book. When I talked about directly quoting from Satyarth Prakash then they said it’s WP:OR and you can’t do that. When I added criticism of Sahajananda about supportive of caste system then they did their original research and now, wants to be included in article. Their primary concern seems to be removing criticism of their sect or adding justification of it. And most of them are inexperienced editors. I cited WP:Criticism to let them know how criticism section and article is written and they’re intractable. Comment on multiple issues of talk page, they’re distracting me for adding new work. They start topic under some random policy and stop it under completely another policy. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 05:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Criticism of Swaminarayan sect.The discussion is about the topic Criticism of Swaminarayan sect. Thank you.

Moksha88 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Jainism in Afghanistan
Info: This page has been deleted which you significantly contributed to, by its author Rishabh.rsd (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Golden Temple
Greetings! While cleaning some vandalism on page about Golden Temple, you also removed information about Ramgarhia bunga from this page (section: Clock Tower and Ramgarhia Bunga). Keeping in mind it historical importance, hope you will restore it! Quality Check (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. The short para I removed about Ramgarhia Bunga was an unsourced recent addition. You are right, though, that the article should mention it. I will locate some scholarly sources and then add back a summary on it from those sources, in the next few hours. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment
On one talk page Swaminarayan Sampraday you commented that Welcome to wikipedia. Doesn't matter whether it is dig/praise/reality, it is unencyclopedic and not notable. When someone alleges one must "drink poison to become Nilkanth", this is their opinion. It is from mythology, about mythical/symbolic poison (of unknown composition) just like the mythical/symbolic amrit (also of unknown composition). We do not include every opinion voiced in newspaper or other media in wikipedia articles. It must be notable and of encyclopedic value. Please see WP:WWIN and other content guidelines. A summary of scholarly criticism of this sect would be most welcome. Now, your comment is being misused to remove content from the BLP. Please comment on Morari Bapu that why this content should be included in BLP but fails inclusion in Sampradya’s article. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 03:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment
Your comment is required at Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampraday.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 18:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please have a look at NPOVN#Morari Bapu. -Nizil (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Bearian. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * Thanks. Same to you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Tamil New Year - Puthandu
Hi Sarah

I did a first cut in strengthening the citations in light of your feedback. This is obviously early efforts at the streamlining of the citations. Please have a look and revert on how this could be further strengthened. I may need to visit a library to get exact page numbers in a few instances where possible. I may be able to do so for the next several days before I return. I would be checking your talk page each day for the next week or so so that we can collaborate on strengthening the foot notes. I am not sure whether I understood you correctly - so do have a look.

Please also keep an eye on the Thai Pongal page. There could be edit warring there.

More later. With compliments of the season and best wishes for the Gregorian new year Dipendra2007 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the contribution and those sources. Best wishes for the 2020 and the new decade, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah. Happy 2020. Dipendra2007 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ms Sarah Welch!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Ms Sarah Welch, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thank you and same to you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon
Hi. The The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs! I don't know if you work on the British Isles but as you were so productive in the African Destubathon I thought I should alert you!♦  Dr. Blofeld  12:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mahavira
Mahavira, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. A. Parrot (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Replied. Sorry, late, very late. Too busy with real life. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about WP:RS
Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I read WP:RS, and bias is clearly not a reason for sources to be blacklisted in Wikipedia, even if it is a bias against Wikipedia. In fact, there's an entire article devoted to Criticism of Wikipedia which has reliable sources. No examples are provided of a lack of editorial oversight or inaccurate reporting, so it seems the discussion is based more on retaliation than reason. Blacklisting sources without sound reasoning risks NPOV which worries me. In your experience, what's the best way to refute these assertions? Moksha88 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Indian media in general, whether right or left leaning, paper version or online, has issues and do raise WP:RS concerns. See Paid news in India. We should be concerned if an article exclusively or repeatedly uses/quotes Scroll, OpIndia, Swarajya, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews or such sources. Or exclusively their newspapers for anything other than current news. They are not RS for history, law, philosophy, religion etc. You are rightfully concerned about NPOV, but that NPOV should come not from generic journalists, but from peer-reviewed quality sources, preferably by specialists or scholars known and cited in that field. If such peer-reviewed quality sources do not exist, we have two choices: [1] wikipedia should wait, follow the scholarly curve rather than lead it (my preference); or [2] wikipedia can summarize all "weak, flimsy, who-knows-if-it-is-really-an-RS" sides on a notable topic, in the spirit of NPOV/balance (unfortunately, this is more common in sensitive and dispute-filled articles). You ask, "in your experience, what's the best... ". Answer: Try searching about the topic here, here, links here, etc; remove all left- / right- / nationalists- / globalists- blogs/opeds, and try to summarize peer-reviewed scholarship. It is a lot of reading and work, but the quality shines afterwards and attracts further participation to collaborate/improve after you. I will post more of my thoughts on better/best practices on collaborating/improving wikipedia articles later this month, when I find time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Although much of your "Paid news and private treaties" has found its way into the article Paid news in India, the useful list within it has not. I realize that you're busy, but I hope that what you wrote doesn't languish in your sandbox for much longer: it deserves to be positioned where it will get the attention of editors. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch, certainly I appreciate your insights about news organizations vs academic sources, but the publication of scholarly sources lag behind current events, like the CAA or the Delhi Riots. How long is one to reasonably wait: months, years? Hence, newspapers are allowed to cover current events, and NPOV applies in this context as well. The exclusion of one source because of its bias compromises this pillar of Wikipedia, which is what concerns me. Moksha88 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The "paid news" and other issues with Indian and more generally South Asian and African press (newspapers, magazines) does need a serious discussion. With kids at home, locally volunteering in these corona-virus times and other real-life commitments, I am unable to start or participate in that discussion at the moment. FWIW, I agree with your comments, and of others, on this that were posted on Bishonen's talk page about a year or more ago.
 * While your comments have merit, you are making a wrong assumption. Scholarly papers rarely lag behind major laws such as the CAA. Major laws typically have much scholarship and deep history. CAA too. The scholarship continues and does expand significantly after a law is passed. Unfortunately, the narrative created in the Indian newspapers ignored pretty much all of the scholarship and context, which in turn was then read and copy-pasted in Western media whose journalists have near-zero presence in South Asia. and I discussed the peer-reviewed scholarly sources both offline and on the talk page (see archives). But we – rather I must take almost all the blame – failed to improve that article, as much as it could and should have been. Here are some scholarly publications on CAA 2019, for example. There are many more, and more continue to appear. All of them are directly related to CAA 2019, they provide the context and more:
 * Niraja Gopal Jayal (2019), Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India, Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(1), pp. 33-50
 * Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty (2019). Assam: The Accord, The Discord. Penguin, ISBN 978-93-5305-622-3.
 * Sharma, Chetna (2019). "Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016: continuities and contestations with special reference to politics in Assam, India". Asian Ethnicity, Routledge. 20 (4): 522–540
 * Mihika Poddar (2018), The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: international law on religion-based discrimination and naturalisation law, Indian Law Review, 2(1), 108-118
 * Rizwana Shamshad (2017). Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees, or Infiltrators?. Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-909159-1
 * Niraja Gopal Jayal (2013). Citizenship and Its Discontents: An Indian History. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-06758-5.
 * Roy, Anupama (14 December 2019). "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 and the Aporia of Citizenship". Economic and Political Weekly. 54 (49): 28–34;
 * Roy, Anupama (25 June 2016). "Ambivalence of Citizenship in Assam". Economic and Political Weekly. 51 (26/27): 45–51
 * Kamal Sadiq (2008). Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-970780-5.
 * etc etc
 * Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, no, neither you nor I are to blame. The secondary sources simply do not exist, which bring to bear the historical context of the CAA. And, we cannot synthesize it on our own here.
 * The primary data is also lacking. How many illegal immigrants are actually there? How many naturalised and how many are not?
 * Without data and without context, the whole debate about the CAA is sterile, just POV-warring. Hopefully the Supreme Court will start hearings and some information becomes available.
 * But let us get throw these lockdowns first. Glad to hear you are doing well! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: The above are secondary scholarly sources. The discussion in them is about the background, the history and the language found in CAA 2019. They are therefore directly relevant to CAA 2019. I provided quotes on that article's talk page (now part of its archive) to confirm that these sources do indeed discuss the legal language that is found in CAA 2019 and its earlier draft(s). You provided some quotes too. But to no avail. These and other scholarly sources existed in December and January. Instead of solely or primarily reading newspaper articles on CAA, it would be better to find and read and summarize these, and the relevant sections/chapters in such scholarly sources. That was my main message to Moksha88 above. Such scholarly sources should be more relied upon for the background section of wikipedia articles, than the narrative in the newspapers. Otherwise wikipedia articles end up being POV-warring mirrors of either the anti-appeasement pro-nationalist side, or the anti-nationalist pro-appeasement side, or a mish mash silly POV-warring of these and all the other sides. Peer-reviewed scholarship, such as the list above, can help improve the quality of Wiki articles and keep wikipedia a bit more honest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)