User talk:Ms Sarah Welch

WP:POTD

June 2017

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

Read the main article, the cited sources and our content policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. :-) — Tyler Durden (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Bad-faith comment

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

Actus purus

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

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

Bharata (Ramayana)

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

WP:3RR

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

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