This user helped "Badami cave temples" become a good article.
This user helped "Bhikshuka Upanishad" become a good article.
This user helped "Devi Upanishad" become a good article.
This user helped "Hampi" become a good article.
This user helped "Jabala Upanishad" become a good article.
This user helped "Kaivalya Upanishad" become a good article.
This user helped "Krishna" become a good article.
This user helped "Maitreyi" become a good article.
This user helped "Manasollasa" become a good article.
This user helped "Varaha Upanishad" become a good article.
This user helped "Yoga Yajnavalkya" become a good article.
This user helped "Yogatattva Upanishad" become a good article.
Please help prevent and avoid gender bias in text and image contributions to the wikipedia project
Page semi-protected

User talk:Ms Sarah Welch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.

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".VictoriaGraysonTalk
VictoriaGrayson, 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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. VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Please note that the discussion started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado has now been moved to WP:ANI and you may wish to contribute there. Ben MacDui 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ben MacDui: 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 MacDui 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. @RegentsPark: 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). @Js82, VictoriaGrayson, and Lorstaking: 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

@Randy Kryn: 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)


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 | 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)


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!

Have some....!

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)
      • @Kautilya3, RegentsPark, and First Light: Thank you. @Joshua Jonathan, Randy Kryn, BlueMoonset, Titodutta, Vanamonde93, Cordless Larry, Johnbod, Fish and karate, and Farang Rak Tham:, 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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

@Ronz: 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 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 El_C 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)
@El C: 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)


Hi MSW. When you get the chance, could you take a look at this article? A lot of this material is also at [1] 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)

@RegentsPark: 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.
@RegentsPark: 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)

@Abecedare: 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)

@Abecedare: 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)


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.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)


Hello. I noticed your comment at [2] 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)

@Rowan Forest: 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)

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!

Africa (orthographic projection).svg


You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 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)

@Blackmane: 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 [3] aggi007(talk) 06:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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