User talk:Dawn Bard

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

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)

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)

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)

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)