User talk:Dawn Bard

No edit conflict warnings...

Hi Dawn - Just checking with you if you happened to get any edit conflict warnings during the previous couple of edits, one to Rochdale Principles and the other to the IP vandal's talk page. I edited both of those pages roughly the same time you did, received no edit conflicts on the Rochdale page, and duplicated your warning on the IP page. Not sure what's going on, but I smell a bug :) Would appreciate your help if you got the same. Regards, Fish^Barking? 20:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fish - I didn't get any edit conflict warnings, either. Strange, no? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of atheist philosophers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of atheist philosophers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Revisionism

I noticed that you reverted some of User:Msoamu's edits here on Wahhabi. If you have the time, he is engaging in the same behavior on the articles for Sunni Tehreek, Barelvi and Ahl al-Hadith - all Muslim religious movements about which the user has strong opinions. He has reverted virtually all attempts by other users to edit those articles and refused to engage on a discussion about content; on Talk:Barelvi, he has engaged in discussion but only to attack other editors. I reported it on WP:ANI but an admin told me my report was extremely wrong and might not be read (which is what happened). Myself and a few other editors are at the end of our ropes and don't know what to do, hence my attempts to contact neutral third parties. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you have the time, it would really help the article improve if you could take a look at the discussion and contribute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Alton Gansky for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alton Gansky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton Gansky until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Linda Riordan

Hey. I've taken a look at this article as it seems to have been the subject of some controversial removal of content and tried to ensure some balance. Looks like the comments the user - who may be the subject of the article - is objecting to were added on 2012-10-20 as the story was emerging and the full details weren't yet in the public domain. I'd appreciate some more sets of eyes on the article just to check - I've explained the rough thrust of my edits on the talk. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

mission statment

sorry ABOUT THAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.83.99.11 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dawn,

I did remove some content on the Hijab page, as there are a number of factual errors on the page. I hope you'll see fit to restore the edits.

Thanks,

Elisabeth Strout (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

{{help me}} ......User talk:Sandshark23#Thanks!.Moxy (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

New to this

Hello Dawn- I am new to the editing world of Wikipedia, though I appreciate it's great service. I am looking at the article on the agency I represent, St. Vincent Family Center. I have a lot of update information that I added yesterday but saw that it was removed by you. Can you please help me understand how I can best put the correct information on my agency on the page? Thank you.98.102.245.2 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Facebeef

Hi Dawn, I have blocked the IP user on the above and deleted the page; be careful of getting into a WP:3RR fight! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood, sorry about that. I was under the impression that reverting vandalism didn't count as 3RR, and that removing the speedy tag constituted vandalism. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Black Kettle

You seem to be having an afternoon of it Dawn! I have blocked the disruptive IP user on this case too! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Advertisey?

Dawn, what exactly about my edits to Brickell CitiCentre were "Advertisey" and prompted you to undo my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglas (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is written as an advertisement; it reads like it was pasted directly out of promotional material. Please check out WP:NOTPROMOTION to get an idea of what that means, and please feel free to ask me or ask on the article's talk page if you have any more questions about the language at Brickell CitiCentre. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing "marketing de contenidos", Dawn Bard.

Unfortunately FreeRangeFrog has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Unreviewing page due to PROD.

To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.

REPLY

The user is using a fake name to edit this page & remove sourced contents without any justification.Rajkris (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Les pages Aryan & Mukkulathor sont vandalisées par 2 différents éditeurs qui ajoutent des contenus non référencés et en retirent d'autres qui sont référencés.Rajkris (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not justification to break the 3-revert rule. Take it to the talk page. Also, the other Wikipedian involved is allowed to use a fake name, just like any of us are. I'm not saying their edits are correct, I'm saying you are both engaged in an edit war. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many users or IPs like hm who are daily vandalising this page, to promote their ideology & propaganda. If we let them act, this page would be a complete mess.Rajkris (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Those edits aren't vandalism - just because you disagree with an edit doesn't make it vandalism. You don't own the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced contents and adding instead unsourced ones is a kind of vandalism. This user edits only Aryan page, this shows again his mind & motivation. He's not there for discussion but to defend his ideology. From my side, I am totally ready for discussion.Rajkris (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The other involved editor was adding different sources, and the citations were poorly formed, but they weren't unsourced. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Calvin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Calvin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Outlook.com

I made the change to the Outlook.com article. I believe you removed it in order to satisfy a corporate policy of not criticizing a company's product. Do not change it. A reliable source will be added soon, unless you are going to monitor the site and change it back in less than one minute from when I re-posted the paragraphs again. Please post the original text back. If Outlook.com will not give you permission, then you should inform them of the anger they caused in their customers because of the change they made to the product and ask them directly why they are ignoring their customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.227.179 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my edit. There is no Wikipedia policy of "not criticizing a company's product," and Outlook.com's permission would not be required to post unflattering information about them, as long as it is reliably sourced. The lack of sources is the reason you have had your contribution reverted by two different users. If you want to complain to Outlook.com, their Wikipedia article isn't really the best place to do it - I'd suggest dealing directly with their customer service. Nobody from Wikipedia is going to be contacting them on your behalf. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit of 1953

Hello Dawn. Sorry for my actions. I had downloaded the page to my computer where I was happily amending it for my own purposes. I guess I should stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.30.180 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Hi sorry I don't know how to do this so if this is the wrong place I apologise. Regarding Walking WIth A Ghost I am using it as a template to create an article of Closer. If you'd given me a minute I would have changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickabiddybex (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:?

Dear Dawn,

I think you must have made a mistake....The edit I made wasn't a test. I was just being creative.

Sincerely, Not-Logged-In User of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.110.147 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Bolding large sections of text for no apparent reason came accross as disruptive, and I wasn't the only user to revert your edits. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding external link!

Hi Dawn Bard,

I notice you marked external link as spam. Can you please explain since I'm the contributor and if you check that external link its just a simple content page with a review. Please read it and tell me if you consider that spam or promotional offer.

Thanks,

Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregBonu (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The site in question didn't add anything of value to the Wikipedia article, it's just an unsigned review. Also, when a new user shows up and their only edit is to add external links, it looks like they are promoting something. It doesn't have to be a promotional offer per se, it can just be someone looking for hits. It's generally up to the person adding the link to explain why the new link needs to be there, rather than up to others to explain why it isn't necessary. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Mahathir Mohamad biography

Hi, on the "Mahathir Mohamad" page, I've already explain why I deleted previous edit by LeeGuan. Reference by LeeGuan is from blogspot, which, is not a reliable source. I've taken the info on most of my edit from Mahathir's memoirs.

And since when Mahathir's father named Iskandar Kutty? Iskandar is his grandfather's name, and there's no "Kutty" there. No record, or prove that Iskandar has last name "Kutty". — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Auditor In Chief (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't explain; you made the edit without explanation, and without adding sources. And none of the sources you deleted were from blogspot, they were from Barry Wain's book. And nothing you deleted said anything about his father's name. You undermine your credibility by misrepresenting your edits. If you are using Mahathir's memoirs, you need to cite them as as a source instead of just changing sourced content without citations. Wikipedia takes reliable sources seriously, especially in biographies of living people. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Geno (album)

Hello, thanks for tagging this for not meeting WP:NALBUMS. You may want to consider making it a redirect, as the tag's still there. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dawn Bard. You have new messages at JennGEP's talk page.
Message added 07:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

re: historical facts about the scientific method

With all due respect, consensus based on bias and against documented historical facts has a horrible track record in history. And if the consensus were that Jefferson didn't write the Declaration of Independence, that wouldn't make it a fact or ethical for an encyclopedia to include. It is a historical fact that we have documentation of all 5 steps of the scientific method being used in an experiment in Daniel 1 and many of the ~32 steps of the clinical method as well. Read the peer reviewed article and don't be a party to censoring and erasing the facts of history.

People are just deleting historical facts due to biases, such as the one of methodological naturalism. There is more evidence for Daniel using the scientific method than there is for a number of other claims on that page. Be consistent. Don't use double standards.Dotoree (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, none of that justifies breaking the three-revert rule. I left you a warning for edit-warring because you have added that information to the article 4 times now and been reverted by 4 separate users. Believing you are right is not considered justification for engaging in an edit war, as you have already been told. If you think there is other poorly-sourced information in the article, bring it up on the talk page, but that doesn't mitigate your edit war. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's currently 4th revert in two successive days for user:Dotoree on History of scientific method. I could block him, say after his 5th & 6th, or even 7th reverts, but I would appreciate feedback on the length of the block. I will watch this page. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, I'm not an admin - isn't the first block usually 24 hours? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The nomination was closed prematurely.