Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:45, 19 September 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Ms Sarah Welch, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! NicoPosner (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Brahmacarya

Hello Ms Welch. You have recently placed tags on the above article. While I agree with you that the references need improving I am puzzled by your desire for information from 'experts' on the subject when you have removed references and external links to definitive accounts by three world authorities on the subject namely Swami Sivananda, Swami Chidananda and Swami Vivekananda. Presumably you know that these are three of the most eminent yogis of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? You removed external links to published works by two of them and relevant quotations from another - all of which clarify the subject matter of the article. 81.106.127.14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO and WP:WWIN. I did not see anything in those links that meets WP:ELYES criterion or what is not already in the article. If you disagree, you are welcome to explain on that article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I did delete the sentence about "magnificent personality from brahmacharya", where this was supported by a blog at wordpress.com website. First such assertions do not belong in an encyclopedic article. Second, blogs are not acceptable sources in wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly the most reliable sources - unless you're a believer. For Misplaced Pages, better sources are required. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

India and sfn

Hi MsS. I'm happily surprised with your edits. Did you already know Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics? It's a hub for India-related questions and concerns; India-related articles tend to attract a lot of heated disputes. hope to see more of you.

I'd aso like to draw your attention to Template:Sfn; it's another way of providing references, with short notes in the txt, and a list of sources. See, for example, Hinduism.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JJ. I didn't know that. I will look into them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A sudden star at the Wiki-sky! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Purusartha

Saw Puruṣārtha. Kudos. Very nice work. Just 1 suggestion to keep in mind for next time. As per WP:OVERLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --Redtigerxyz 16:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, and for cleaning up the extra links. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Another Barnstar

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Very gratefull for your valuable work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. Fabulous work on Bhagavan. One more tip: always italicize texts names: for e.g. Vishnu Purana. --Redtigerxyz 10:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, about Bhagavan. IMO, "Literature" should be sub-section under particular religions; Hindu texts under "Hinduism" (which currently discusses Bhagavata Purana, which is literature) etc. What do you think? If you are ok, I will make the changes. --Redtigerxyz 10:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. @Redtigerxyz: - Please go ahead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated Kaushitaki Upanishad, an article you expanded to Misplaced Pages:Did you know section on wikipedia's main page.

Template:Did you know nominations/Kaushitaki Upanishad. I will keep an eye on the nomination. Please let me know if you have any questions.--Redtigerxyz 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

c/u?

Wondering what that stands for in your edit-summaries? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

c/u = clean/up Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course! Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dating mess up

Hi I just noticed you added reference to ramayana at mandukya upanishad but if you observe the dates if the ramayana is dated around 4-5 BCE and mandukya is being dated same time!? (wonder they were googling then?) , some how its date mess but pretty better than 2-4 AD which was mentioned earlier can you fix this ? Shrikanthv (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We must summarize sources, without OR, without POV. That requires fairly summarizing the conflict and different sides, without taking sides. The "fix" you request would be OR. It is better to neutrally present the different sides, and let the reader meditate on each side. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wondering why you see dating as a point of POV Shrikanthv (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kaushitaki Upanishad

On 30 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kaushitaki Upanishad, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Kaushitaki Upanishad teaches that knowledge should be one's pursuit, not religious rituals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kaushitaki Upanishad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Adi Shankara

Rambhachan

Hi Ms Sarah Welch. I noticed that you removed qute some text from Adi Shankara, including the following block, witht he edit-summary "Rambhachan makes no mention of Shankara":

"Regarding meditation, Shankara refuted the system of Yoga and its disciplines as a direct means to attain moksha, rebutting the argument that it can be obtained through concentration of the mind. His position is that the mental states discovered through the practices of Yoga can be indirect aids to the gain of knowledge, but cannot themselves give rise to it. According to his philosophy, knowledge of Brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanishads, and the knowledge of Brahman that shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way."

References

1. Anantanand Rambachan, The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas. University of Hawaii Press, 1994, pages 124, 125: .

I checked the source; Shankara is mentioned at least four times. What's more, the chapter is called "Vivekananda and Shankara." I think that an essential point is being made here, on the "method" of (Advaita) Vedanta. See also Anantanand Rambachan#Anubhava; Micahel Comans (1993), The question of the importance of Samadhi in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta, Philosophy East & West. Jan93, Vol. 43 Issue 1; and Neil Dalal (2009), Contemplative Practice and Textual Agency in Advaita Vedanta, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 21 (2009) 15-27. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. I looked into it again. The two large paragraphs I removed, were unsourced. My Rambhachan edit, and edit summary, was my error. I reworded it and added it back, along with Isaeva's book as second source. I will add more summary on the 'method', shortly, as it indeed is an essential point. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It took me a couple of years to really get the point on what is "real", or "traditional" AV, and what is "neo-AV". I'd read Comans before, but Dalal's article was really enlightening: AV is a form of "lectio divina" (my words), and not some sort of Theosophical mystical insight. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Quote

I came across this blog, with this interesting sentence: "Her studies of Hinduism have sought to recover the buried, heterodox Tantric tradition from under the weight of the orientalist's favourite form of Hinduism – Vedanta. For European orientalists, Vedantism was the closest to their own monotheism – a set of faith practices bourgeois in their mood and conduct. Tantrism – with its impurities of sex and diet – seemed out of favour." It seems to tune with my own (limited) understanding, that there is more to Hinduism than neo-Vedanta. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Doniger's early work, after her thesis under Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Sr. and before 1997, was more interesting and balanced. Tantra has had an influence in certain schools of Hinduism and Buddhism, yet has been and is relatively small, in both. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For an interesting discussion on possible link between early Upanishads/Vedas and Tantra: Robert Brown's introductory chapter and Teun Goudriaan chapter 9 in The Roots of Tantra, ISBN 978-0791453063, State University of New York Press. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

King and primary opinion

Hallo Ms sarah Welch. I need some explanation to understand the qualification of King as "primary opinion." Could you enlighten my mind? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Single author opinions are primary, whether these are comparative probable-praise (Ashley) or comparative probable-criticism (King). King summary I removed, presented King's personal opinion, without any specifics on how and in which way Mandana-Misra was more influential than Adi Shankara. I welcome any specifics, if you wish to add, that actually present factual comparison between Mandana-Misra and Shankara, facts that show the relative influence (WP:PEA). I will read King one more time to see if he states any specific facts that should be summarized to improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. It makes sense, doesn't it? Shankara and the upper classes, while the real popular support was for theistic Vedanta and bhakti. Fascinating (I also studied critical sociology; Habermas and Foucault and the like). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In Myanmar, Thailand and Japan, we see the same in modern times – popular support for theistic Buddhism and other traditions. Masses of people praying with incense sticks and offering flowers before a statue of Buddha, muttering prayers and asking for luck and divine favors. Priests in these mostly Buddhist countries bless new cars, the unemployed and anxious moms with babies for a fee. Shankara, in his bhasyas, had comments on theism, and its appropriate role. I will try to dig those sources out, and summarize it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm impressed by you work on Ajivika article. BTW, if you ever thought creating a new article, then Ajnana school of thought which was contemporaneous to Buddha's life time would be very worthwhile. :D Manoguru (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Eliot Deutsch

Hi MSW. I'm reading Eliot Deutsch's Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reappraisal. Do you know how this book is "rated" in the schlarly community? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JJ, it is well respected since its 1969 print. Karl Potter's review reasonably summarized the scholarly consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I find the book to be very informative, especially because it takes a somewhat phenomenological stance, treating Advaita Vedanta's 'philosophy' as a 'description' of human experience. That's what I figured myself, and it's nice to see someone else state this. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yoga

		The Half Barnstar
		One half for you, the other half for VictoriaGrayson, for your joint work on Yoga and the Yoga Sutras. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Once and a while, a big SIGH.... and keep up the good work! See also and . Best regards, no, high regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks JJ. I appreciate the note. Do know I admire and am inspired by diligent and patient contributors on wikipedia, such as you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I sense some growing irritation...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. It cheered me hours ago. But just read a confusing spiel by @Mohanbhan on "fascist and hegemony approach", so I came back to take another look at this kitten. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dang, I could use some kitten. Can I pet it?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Canvassing Not Done

This and this not OK, Sarah Welch. You are not following WP:CANVASS. You are repeating the same thing that you did on Template:Hindu Philosophy, canvassing and scuttling the normal process of consensus building. You cannot gang up like this and seek support for your biased and disruptive edits. Hope good sense prevails. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: You have been making personal attacks on multiple talk pages, with repeated use of choice words such as "fascist" as you did for example here (and your use of this word was objected to by editor @Ogress). You have edit warred as you did here and here, and rudely admonished multiple wikipedia editors such as editor @Cpt.a.haddock here with the edit summary "why this insolence". Your personal attacks on me have been objected to by other wikipedia editors here and the personal attack deleted, but such deletes too was reverted and reinstate by you (apparently you are doing this with intent and conviction). I have reached out to @Abecedare, an admin, not to canvass, but for second opinion and to intervene/mediate as a neutral third party without WP:ANI. Please stop. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ms sarah Welch did a wise thing: she asked another editor for a second opinion. I've also asked you (Mohanbhan) to calm down, and to act in a normal, mature way. You don't need to act the way you're doing now; it's clear that you know a lot, that you are able to give convincing arguments, and that you've got a point of view which is an enrichment for Misplaced Pages. So please, try a different tone. We're not out here to do you any harm or to attack you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

An ARCA discussion involving you has been created

{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request archived

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to

3 RR reminder

A note for you.

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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.Ghatus (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Good work at article Ravidas

Just saying thanks for the edit that you did on Ravidas page. Best regards.Terabar (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see edit war at Brahma page

Please see edit war at Brahma pageVictoriaGrayson 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Just returned from vacation. Will take a look. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk page posting

Per this, I suggest you don't post to the editor's talk page regarding the changes you're making. It is better to do it at the article talk pages as it will be seen by other interested editors, so you may want to do that instead. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)