User talk:Dawn Bard

AfD nomination of Lucie Lebaz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lucie Lebaz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Lebaz. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Valenti

Liked your comments on Jessica Valenti's deletion discussion! Excellent sources - I will try to use them to improve the article. RMJ (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Samhita Mukhopadhyay

Hi there! Thanks for your help in the discussion on Jessica Valenti's deletion. If you get a chance, I could use your perspective over at the current debate on Samhita Mukhopadhyay's article for deletion debate. Thanks!! RMJ (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from JBC3

Hello, Dawn Bard! As you are an editor who does a lot of vandalism reversion, I wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers. Good luck out there! --JBC3 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I saw you put back that speedy deletion tag on the Nexx Studio article, can you tell me what I should do, the guy who originally stuck it up there wont respond about so he shouldn't be sticking those tags there in the first place if he isn't willing to respond, but I fixed the article so it isn't compliant with CSD7 and more which means the tag should go right? ZStoler (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Message from putiton

Why did someone put the speedy deletion tag on my article about Deep Mindzz? I dont get what can i do to prevent this from occuring in any of my future articles. I just began on wikipedia today. The article is not greatly detailed because the boys B Quizzle and Infamous J are pretty private but i can still get the information. All that i must do is simply ask. Can the atricle not be deleted because I still dont exactly know what is so wrong about it. I see plenty of articles about things like a word that is made up and other needless things. Why is my article a canidate for speedy deletion? putiton (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I filed a relevant SPI request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr._Tariq_Nayfeh. At the moment there seems to be dispute over the puppet master. Verbal chat 11:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:149.68.105.207, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:149.68.105.207 is blocked for sockpuppetry/block evasion. I stand by my decision to restore that notice to their talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of WP:USER needs a slight modification. Gaming the system is still a problem if IP users are able to remove recent/current warnings. See Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Removal_of_comments, which I just started. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion and abortion

I'm quite likely going to get permanently banned in the near future, so I'd like to encourage you to follow through on fixing that article. Best of luck. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ælfheah of Canterbury

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your anti-vandalism efforts while poor Ælfheah of Canterbury was on the main page! May an obscure little Anglo-Saxon bishop and saint bless you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Threats to ban

Dawn, I really think you are overdoing it with these threats to ban people. I reverted edits on the article to address issue of libel, which is allowed in the Biographies of Living People. Please chill. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I am not gonna put it back in if you don't agree me to, But it is true that humans ARE created by GOD. That is the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by !1029qpwoalskzmxn (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with you, it's that that statement has no place in a science article, which is what Human evolution is. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrational fear

Do you still contest the definition of homophobia? If you don't, I am going to go ahead and change it to my version. Don't accuse me of creating an edit war, in that case. Also, do you feel that citing a source which only cites another source that has been already cited is not a violation of wikipedia's policy? (Like that online dictionary AOL source which only cites Merriam and gives the exact same definition as Merriam, which has already been cited) If you feel that the "proxy" source is redundant and a violation, at least allow me to remove an obvious mistake like that. 76.195.220.65 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my view is that the word "irrational" belongs, and it is sourced. And you are at the moment involved in an edit war - your changes have been reverted 4 times by 3 different editors. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you answer the second part of what I wrote? And also, please respond to my arguments in the discussion page to you.76.195.220.65 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at the article's talk page, since it will be easier to track it and other editors are involved. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of "on-line media" section form Connecticut page

I am writing to ask why the "On-line media" section was removed from the Connecticut page.

Every day, millions more Americans - and thousands more Connecticut residents - are making on-line sources (including news outlets, blogs, etc.) their primary news/info source.

It seems to me that listing traditional newspapers only (and most of those lists must be updated frequently, as these newspapers are shutting down at a rapid rate) is a bit backwards-looking (especially for the on-line Wikipedia!).

In fact, one of the sites listed in the deleted section, CTNewsJunkie, was profiled yesterday in Time Magazine (at: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1896808,00.html) with this description: "There are usually 11 reporters who make their home offices in the fourth-floor newsroom of the slightly Gothic marble and granite Connecticut State Capitol building in Hartford. Seven of them work for newspapers, two for radio, one for the AP and one of them, Christine Stuart, is the Connecticut News Junkie. On any given day at CTnewsjunkie.com, there are stories about Connecticut's budget woes, health care issues and Senator Chris Dodd's attempts to reform the credit card industry. Most of the stories are written by Stuart. All the photos are taken by Stuart. And Stuart or her husband, who works as a layout editor at a local paper, handle most of the ads, which are for local unions or the Connecticut Dairy Farmers Association. So far, her best month garnered her site 67,000 page views,"

And according to Wikipedia's own entry for "Online Journalism," the future of news and information is on-line:

"A research study conducted by Pew Research Center for The People & The Press offer a classification of newspaper readers and the movement of online readers. Around 46% of Americans are classified as Traditionalist. This means these people rely on traditional media sources like TV, newspaper and radio. Those in the Integrator category rely on traditional media as well as increasing internet news. This is around 23% of Americans. This is category is mostly of the baby boomer generation. The category that is now seeing an increase is the Net-Newsers. This is around 13% of Americans who rely mainly on the internet for their news. This category is mainly a younger generation like college graduates and who able to access the internet access easily whether it be a lap top, Blackberry or i-Phone. This is where the future of readers and newspapers are headed.[1]

Thank you for considering my questions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rslate (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rslate (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. I wasn't the one who removed those additions to the Connecticut page, but it looks like it was a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:EL. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

male abortion

Is there some particular reason you systematically revert back to a version that ONLY mentions one side of the criticism while presenting the information in such a way that it completely ignores other criticisms?

What you are doing is called "framing", by choosing to omit certain information and presenting an incomplete (biased) picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.11.251 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is adding unsourced, POV pushing, original research, and several editors, myself included, have reverted your edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Jason allen collins

Hi, just letting you know that I changed your speedy on this page from a7 to g10 as it was an attack. Try not to go to fast and thus miss these things. Thanks for your work in new page patrolling. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I understand, and I know that the author likely meant it in a disparaging way, but I'm not in love with the idea that simply writing that the (male) subject of the article has sex with men necessarily constitutes an "attack" - some men do have sex with men, and there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, I suspect that it wouldn't have been viewed as an attack if it had said that he has sex with women.

Does that make sense? I'm just being nitpicky about the semantics here, aren't I? I really have a habit of over-thinking things like this I should probably just use my judgement in these, and use g10 when it is reasonably clear that the author intended to attack. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but G10 can refer to negative unsourced statements, so (depending on your point of veiw (which, BTW, you're not allowed ;D)) that kind of thing can be classified as an attack. But you are right in that it is best to do it on a case-to-case basis, any not categorise every single "gay-statement" as an attack. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Facing History

Hi Dawn,

I am trying to add our resources on antisemitism from facinghistory.org to wikipedia. I'm getting blocked, and have been for the past few days when trying to add relevant content to enrich your site. You're claiming this is advertising, but we're an education nonprofit trying to provide free resources to those who might want to teach about various topics we cover on our website. This hasn't been a problem before, but it seems that now we've been flagged as an advertiser. Can you please advise on how to proceed? Thank you.

Facinghistory (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me jump in here. Irrespective of the purpose of your website, spamming is spamming, and when it's done by a user with a spamname it's doubly so. The warnings you have received are justified and your user name has been reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in - I was worried that I had been too aggressive with Facinghistory, and that I should have done more to assume good faith, given that the org in question is a non-profit. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't permit any greater leeway to spam when the subject of the promotion is a non-profit, charity, faith, or whatever. Spam is spam; advertising is advertising. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone! This is Rachel here, just myself, not representing my org anymore, just representing me. :) Mangojuice was super helpful in explaining what the rules are. I think writing something like "spam is spam; advertising is advertising" isn't really helpful. I totally get it now and have requested that my user: talk page be removed (my user page is already pulled thanks to the speedy blocking powers of the wikipedia patrol, it seems). In future, I'd like to ask that you try to provide the kind of information and tone that Mangojuice did. It probably would have taken about 5 seconds more and it was so much more pleasant and informative. I know you're all working at lightning speed, but it'd be so appreciated among those of us who are just generally unaware of the rules and aren't trying to break them. I promote wikipedia to my org as a great resource, one of the biggest reasons why being that it's got such an amazing community of contributors, editors and admins. I don't want to walk away from this experience feeling like they're great but they're kind of mean. Just my two cents. Thanks for reading. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remtheory (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop interfering with efforts to present NPOV

The information that you keep deleting in the Philip Markoff case is anything and everything that presents the view that he is innocent until proven guilty. You take the same approach in the Caylee Anthony article. While you may have already concluded that these defendants are guilty, others have not prejudged them and believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. If you are not an American perhaps you do not understand this. But many Americans take the view that defendants like Philip Markoff and Casey Anthony should not be convicted in the media before their trial. Please stop deleting everything that does not paint these people as guilty. The NPOV policy is to ALLOW different points of view to be presented in the article. Please read the NPOV policy and stop trying to interfere with that policy. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand "innocent until proven guilty" because I'm Canadian? Seriously? Anyway, you're misrepresenting my edits (and the edits of the many other users who have been reverting you.) Posting information that has been reported in reliable independent sources is not a violation of NPOV, and nobody has said that he is guilty. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday you deleted ALL of my edits that tried to make the article more neutral. The overall tone of the article is that this guy is guilty and that there is all this evidence against him. To provide an alternative view and more neutral tone, I added words to the effect that his lawyer said he is not guilty. This I inserted in a paragraph saying that police claim he engaged in a series of crimes, as listed. You deleted my edit. But that sentence was certainly appropriate under NPOV. You also deleted all of my edits saying that the sources of the information were anonymous leaks--not official statements. My words were also appropriate under NPOV. You also deleted my addition of the word "alleged" to "Craigslist Killer". The use of the word "alleged" is consistent with how the newspapers say it. What I was adding made the statement more accurate. There were other edits also that you deleted--all along the same lines. You just will NOT allow an alternative viewpoint in the article. That violates NPOV standards.

"Neutral point of view"

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

"The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides."

"Bias"

"Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed."

Theo789 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada!

I've spent some time in Canada the past couple years. I was a volunteer camp counselor at a camp in Nanaimo, on Vancouver island. It was beautiful. Aim for fairness 31 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

'physician' article

Thanks for all your vigilance & removal of vandalism; it seems a little strange to me why this article should attract it. I made a lot of edits last year, but lately only log on to wikipedia one or twice weekly.

I note you are interested in antropology and religion. There's some relationship with medicine; see the 'history of medicine' article.

Cheers. DavidB 05:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem - I had put Physician on my watchlist a while ago because of one particularly persistent vandal, but ended up keeping in on the list because, as you say, it seems to attract vandalsm for some reason. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Two-tier health care

Hi Perspectoff. Thanks for editing Two-tier health care; it really needed some work. I am concerned, though, for two reasons - first, that the article has no sources, and second, that the inclusion of a list of countries that don't have 2-tier doesn't really belong in this particular article. Can we discuss/seek consensus on the article's talk page? Thanks again, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am working on editing the article. I am a state consultant for healthcare reform and submitted a detailed healthcare reform plan to the Clinton campaign, as well as legislators in California (roundtable discussion occurring tomorrow). I only occasionally look at Wikipedia, and saw this terrible article referenced. If you have an interest or some expertise on healthcare, it would be great to see some of your edits! Perspectoff (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do have some interest - I work in healthcare policy in Canada, though on the business/fiscal side, as opposed to the medical/scientific side. I think it won't be hard for us to come up with some reliable sources for this article.Dawn Bard (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in White supremacy

Dear Dawn, I would value your input on the discussion regarding the word anachronistic in the White Supremacy talk page --155.198.108.162 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I am sorry, I meant to put that on your talk page.

You have made three reverts as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimidgy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 May 2009

Please see WP:3RR - to violate it, you have to have done MORE than 3 edits in 24 hours. You have done 5 reverts, and the consensus version of the page has been restored by 3 different editors (myself included). Thanks for your concern, but I am not the one in violation of 3RR. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Factory farming article

Hey, Dawn Bard - Sorry, I didn't realize that my revert changed the title of a reference - I would not have done that on purpose. I just reverted, then replaced the Purdue link, which was broken, with the EPA link. I should have reviewed the changes more carefully. Bob98133 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I probably shouldn't have been so bitchy in my edit summary; I realise that you weren't the one who originally changed the reference. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolution vandal

If you see someone replace an article with text from Genesis, don't bother warning him. Just report to AIV immediately, and say that it is the "Genesis vandal". That guy is a long-term vandal, so show no mercy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks - I keep this page on my watchlist because of frequent vandalism / POV pushing. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to semiprotect your userpage? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Although that particular vandal seems to have stopped. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert?

Why revert on racism? The previous text was partly proven wrong. The new had reference. This topic has been discussed too. You should not revert without poiting out errors. Filosofen (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus text had a reference, and is not "proven wrong" just because you say it is wrong. The topic has not been discussed - you left a long comment about it at Talk:Racism under the heading "Anti-White Propaganda definition" which nobody came forward to agree with. That's not a discussion. And I did explain my revert on the talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"which nobody came forward to agree with". And nobody proved was wrong. That is most important. And I got reference for it. Check if the current text is better. I've given reference and this is much better than the old crap which is totally nonsense attack on science and not racists.

Filosofen (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:Racism. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

trying to reach middle ground why else would I keep changing my own edits?

trying to reach middle ground why else would I keep changing my own edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borcat (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete sourced material, and please don't use another Wikipedia article as a source. At least 3 different Wikipedia editors have reverted your edits; you should consider seeking consensus on the talk page before making it again. Since you are now in violation of the three revert rule, you should revert your last edit. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Making Porn For Africa

Hello Dawn Bard, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Making Porn For Africa) under a different criteria, because the one you provided was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any queries, please let me know. Thanks again! Ale_Jrb^talk 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Sorry about that. I thought that speedy deleting for lack of notability was a good "catch-all" - if an article is a hoax or pure vandalism, it will also fail notability, right? Anyhow, I was so certain that "Making Porn For Africa" deserved a speedy delete that I didn't think too hard about the reason, but I will make sure to be more carefull in the future. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Saylorcompany/ Marc Dreier Page

This contributor just registered only to delete facts in the court record. It is a PR company from Los Angeles. He is a paid consultant. Facts are facts as is the Truth. If you are curious, go see what has been written on his talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saylorcompany

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 reference kaffer

Note several references to the article was included. This is however not a complete list yet and further research will add several more references. To delete information as vandalism as well as <talk> information as part of a discussion is seen as vandalism. If you delete sections again you can be reported a a repeat vandalism and be blocked to Wikipedia. Especially for subjects you are not an expert at.