I made an edit suggestion to Krishna tag.


The current info is:

Krishna is considered as the eighth incarnation among ten principle incarnations (Sanskrit दशावतार, IAST daśāvatāra) of Lord Vishnu.

I suggested the following change:

Krishna is considered as the eighth incarnation among ten principle incarnations (Sanskrit दशावतार, IAST daśāvatāra) of Lord Vishnu. Krishna is also considered Svayam Bhagavan, source of all incarnations by many.

enter image description here

And it is rejected giving the following reason:

This edit defaces the post in order to promote a product or service, or is deliberately destructive.

I don't understand how it is a valid reason to reject my edit. The reason is simply wrong.

But, I see following tags for Vishnu, Shiva and Radha.


The god of preservation, also called Narayana. Brahman in Vaishnavism


Shiva (The auspicious one) is the "Destroyer" among the Trimurti. He is considered as supreme Brahman according to Shaivism. Use this tag to ask questions that concern about Shiva in any of his forms

Even, Radha, the consort of Krishna is mentioned as Adi Shakti

Radha also called Radhika, Radharani and Radhikarani, is a Hindu goddess who is almost always depicted alongside Krishna and features prominently within the theology of today's Vallabha and Gaudiya Vaishnava sects, which regards Radha as the original Goddess or Shakti.

Considering all these, why is my edit rejected as promoting product and deliberately destructive? How is my tag edit any different from existing tags?

  • 4
    You should have mentioned "Krishna is Svayam Bhagavan, source of all incarnations as per Gaudiya vaishnavism" instead of generic statements.
    – The Destroyer Mod
    Commented Apr 1, 2019 at 6:05
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer I think 4-5 sects consider , that's why I wrote many Commented Apr 1, 2019 at 6:05
  • 3
    It's not about how many sects. it is always better to mention sect or philosophy. Tag description should be as neutral as possible. It might have looked, you were promoting Krishna as supreme God in tag description. Hence they rejected.
    – The Destroyer Mod
    Commented Apr 1, 2019 at 6:07
  • Ah! I thought to edit the tag wiki but forgot. I suggest you to edit again by writing "Krishna is considered as Brahman by some sects" and elaborate it a little. Instead of "some" use specific names as others suggested. In my answer here hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/20203/6981 I wrote some names which I know.
    – user6981
    Commented Apr 1, 2019 at 15:08
  • @KrishnaShweta I will edit tomorrow again Commented Apr 2, 2019 at 18:08

2 Answers 2


Tag excerpt is usage guidance that describes when and why a tag should be used on this site specifically.

Visit Guidelines from help-center:

  • Avoid generically defining the concept behind a tag
  • Concentrate on what a tag means to your community.
  • Provide basic guidance on when to use the tag.
    In other words, what kinds of questions should have this tag? Tags only exist as ways of organizing questions, so if we don’t provide proper guidance on which questions need this tag, they won’t get tagged at all, rendering the tag excerpt moot. Think of it as a sales pitch: in a room full of tags screaming “pick me!”, what would convince a question asker to select your tag?

In earlier growing stage of bets sites, it is usually observed that users tend to write definition on tag excerpt. For instance the tag excerpt of should provide the guidance when to use this tag however we are rather defining the tag. Here present tag excerpts identify the Krishna fine but we should not concentrate much on descriptive definition according to different sects in excerpt. We can do it (brief description) in full tag wiki (the text area after excerpt where markdown formatting is also supported)

In addition to your edit "Krishna is also considered Svayam Bhagavan, source of all incarnations by many." doesn't talk anything about when to use this tag, it tries to identify according to one belief of particular sect which may be taken as promoting particular sect or deity which is why I think your tag is rejected as spam.

  • 1
    Do you mean earlier tags were not defined properly? Commented Apr 1, 2019 at 8:02
  • 2
    Spam has altogether a different meaning. Spam carries penalties. Adding a line based on the previous tag excerpts is not spam. Which product was promoted here? May I know? Were the users spamming with Shiva, Vishnu and Radha also? The reason could be "No improvement whatsoever". Just another wrong review. I think the reviewers should also look at all the rejection reasons or improve the edit based on a newbie mistake. If you have doubt, look at alwar history and how was it reviewed. Spam is too much for the edit. Commented Apr 1, 2019 at 20:25
  • 1
    Even I dont see any promotion here
    – user6981
    Commented Apr 2, 2019 at 17:21
  • @Sarvabhouma Agree that spam is bit much for this edit and "no improvement..." is better choice.
    – Pandya Mod
    Commented Apr 3, 2019 at 2:22
  • 2
    It should have been improved following previous tag excerpts. It was not the editor's mistake here. If you look at tag excerpts of many tags, they only contain description. Some contain plagiarized content from Wiki or other sources. Following guidelines, E.g Look at sathya-sai. "Sathya Sai Baba who is believed by his followers to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi. " where is guidance which questions need the tag? Is this rejected as spam? What is the action if privileged users provide wrong excerpts or plagiarized content? Did the name of editor made them think it's spam? Commented Apr 3, 2019 at 4:58

Had you proposed a consolidated wording such as the following taken from Wikipedia along with names of a few sects like Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava that consider Kṛṣṇa as the supreme God, it had a better chance of getting approved.

He is worshiped as the eighth avatar of the god Vishnu and also by some as the supreme God in his own right.

Simply adding an extra line to the current tag excerpt to me seemed like you were making a statement and/or promoting your sect. Although in retrospect I should have probably rejected as no improvement whatsoever ('changes are completely superfluous').

Suggest you try again with the above recommendations and also the ones in the other answer.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .