User talk:Dawn Bard

This is Dawn Bard's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

mission statment

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

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)[reply]

FYI

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excellent ides. Done! Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The nomination was closed prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. See WP:SK. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reverted speedy deletions

Rather than deleting the tag you say is incorrect, why not fix it or direct towards correct tag.

Actions like this make fixing flaws in wiki harder, when i good faith used the best tag i could find.

I'm sorry, I don't know what edits of mine you are talking about. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. 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) 16:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robison Family Murders

The ROBISON FAMILY MURDERS has been part of my last five year's research project for the PETOSKEY PUBLIC LIBRARY, Petoskey, Michigan. This is close to the northern Michigan site of the June 25, 1968 Robison family Good Hart murders. I have placed all of the FOIA purchased references and other materials used in my search of this event and now feel that for the first time the WIKI article reads in a correct manner.

I now feel that all of the clean up notices should be eliminated.

If you wish to see further evidence of my credentials on this subject you can email me at MNR.RAWiles@gmail.com Richard A. Wile MA/Ed.S MICHIGAN NORTH RESEARCH 210 Sky View Drive PETOSKEY, MICHIGAN 49770-9212 MNR.RAWiles@gmail.com/ 231 347 4587

Thank you --RW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Francois Vidocq (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Stadtmiller

Hi Dawn,

edited Mandy Stadtmiller page for improper content and referencing. article reads like a resume. also the majority of the references included on the page simply link to the front page of a business or publication and do not verify the information provided in the wiki. also, the article cites the the twitter front page as verification that she "quit" her job.

article is misleading and clearly written either by Stadtmiller or a representitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.19.145 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've taken a closer look at your edits, and I agree with you, so I apologize for reverting you so quickly. I see you explained you most recent edit in the edit summary;[1] thanks for that - it's one of the best ways, along with using the article talk page, to make sure your edits don't get mis-identified as vandalism. Again, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn,

I am new to WIKI, but I am a veteran historical researcher, former history instructor and passionate about northern Michigan (MACKINAC ISLAND area) history. I will take all of your advice to construct a better article for the Robison Family Murders. Thank you! RW (E.F.V) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.225.203 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

Although the "Institute of Creation of Research" jars to many academicians as a source "unreliable", on the theoretical grounds, all relevant and academic sources were included in my edit from the source article. http://www.icr.org/article/5512/ All of its arguments are cited from publications out of mainstream publication houses and journals. Please read the content of the addition in light of the arguments being made, and then inform yourself of your edit. Thank you. I'm an evolutionist!

I've never known anyone to self-identify as an "evolutionist" before. It's usually just a label that creationists use to imply that evolution is an ideology or a religion. The Institute of Creation Research isn't a reliable source on science articles because it is fundamentally unscientific to skew research towards supporting a pre-determined conclusion, such as "the world and people were created by a deity." Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must be a young man, because although the hesitance to American fundamental "creationism" is no doubt prevalent among scientific society, the theory of Darwinian evolution is still scientific theory. We work with theories in all rubrics of science, and sometimes they are adapted, changed, and even completely discredited according to observable data. The argument being added to the page under dispute, doesn't disprove evolution!! If may very well add to it! It happens to be a scientific assay from a premise of "Intelligent Design", but it's in no way not amenable to evolutionary theory! Remember, Darwinian evolution characterizes the courses and changes of existing breeding populations, and in now way explains abiogenesis. This is where the side of "Intelligent Design" adumbrates its arguments from. Although their premise may be wrong, their arguments may still be true! Please inform yourself of the content of the sourced information argument, because your edits have all been in trespass of Wikipedia's WP:RS Thank you! --Twainmaned (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you've written here justifies the use of ICR as a source on a science article, but excellent use of big words and exclamation marks! Dawn Bard (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jerry Bergman's article is academically-cited from scientific journals, mainstream publication houses, and from fellow Ph.Ds!! The Institute of Creation Research has nothing to do with the content of his article or its sources. It's merely a purveyor of his content! Please inform yourself. Thank you. ; )

Even if we put aside the issue of reliable sources, pasting large blocks of text directly from the source is a copyright violation, and as such is against the rules here!! Please inform yourself. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robison family murder

Thank you very much for helping us get this entry in the proper style and format for Wiki. It has been a challenge to do so due to unfamiliarity of the process. There are two of us trying to make this work in progress correct. The facts are true, well researched and very well documented. We are currently working on substance, format and visual syntax style for Wiki. Please don't hesitate to help us out. After we get the text in proper format, we will add our footnote citations. We would profit from your help there if you could assist us. Please be patient with us we find the process a bit challenging to a novice. But be reassured we are not novices with respect to the Robison family murder facts and details.Dr. John H. Watson (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robison family murder

I am sorry about the Epilogue. Consider it done and thank you. Please do not hesitate to help us make this perfect. Footnotes are yet to come but I am beat now and need a time out.Dr. John H. Watson (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ibiza

You deleted a whole section. Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.37.192 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the notice on your talk page, I deleted your spam (advertising) links, because advertising isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of Personal Attacks and Subsequent Wiki Bullying of New Users

I have NOT personally attacked any Wiki fellow user and User: Toccata quarta is flaming, please see and help put a stop to this aggresion from User: Toccata quarta:

User: Toccata quarta has accussed me of accusing him of being racist here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations_of_racism

This is wholly false. This started with User: Toccata quarta vandelising the chess article after I added chess is a board game "of Indian origin" and introduced the notion of "Grandmaster" by early on describing current World Champion, V. Anand, as a Grandmaster and linking "Grandmaster" to the Grandmaster page.

This is all I included and have contributed to Wiki, to which User: Toccata quarta reverted my post saying that "Modern chess is different from Indian chess" and that "Grandmaster is unnesscary".

Ofcourse, I never said anything about Indian chess and modern chess, only saying chess originates from India in the introduction.

To which I replied: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess&action=history

I never accused User: Toccata quarta of being racist but simply asked if he has a biased view in editing the chess article with my specific use of question marks after asking him questions about his bias.

User: Toccata quarta then taunts me to not attack him when I simply ASKED (NOT ACCUSED) the question of whether he was racist and has a biased view in editing the page as can be seen with User: Toccata quarta's comments:

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

Now I reply with further questions about the absurdity of what User: Toccata quarta has written. He writes, in brief, "I edit article about India therefore I am not racist".

To which I rationally respond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toccata_quarta#Personal_and_Racial_Attacks

Please note, I do NOT accuse him at all of being a "closet racist" but simply make the obious statement that defines closet racists - they have friends of all colors/races.

How is this a personal attack by me?

ESPECIALLY since he gloats and taunts me that he has reported me to YOU with this further heated comment on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HACKER_HEADSHOT (look under "February 2013")

I am worried User: Toccata quarta will continue to flame people if User: Toccata quarta is not given a warming about his repeated use of deleting posts unjustly and provoking other users into fights like this.

Thank you for your service.

HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER HEADSHOT (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and nobody reported you to me. I just noticed that you were accusing another user of racism in edit summaries, and left a notice on your talk page. I strongly suggest you stop "asking" other users if they are racist. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you and share your empathy in handling users that are so keen so flame. I simply want to contribute good material in edits and not be bullied by User: Toccata quarta and definantly NOT be banned from articles that are on my watchlist and I enjoy reading.

Thank you nonetheless. Could you please debrief User: Toccata quarta about the situation and kindly ask User: Toccata quarta not to accuse others of accussing her/him of racism? Especially, like you said, when they are open questions and NOT statements.

HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, so it's all in one place, okay? Dawn Bard (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Physical determinism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Physical determinism. 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) 17:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charsadda

i am from charsadda.. i know more then you.. so plz stop this.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.156.135 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the article is unsourced, poorly written and not directly about Charsadda. I'm not the only one reverting it, and it's are going to keep getting reverted unless you improve them. If you want to improve the article, use the article's talk page to ask for advice. If you continue your edit war, the page will just be protected again. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

What? i have even added sources on the page that shows that they were not Kurds, the guy that reported me is editing everything and saying it's Kurdish, please take a look what's happening, and im not stopping until you see what's actually happening, i would report the guy but i don't know how, thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is justification for breaking the 3-revert rule, and the information you were deleting was sourced. I suggest you try to reach consensus on the talk page before continuing the edit war. If you want to "report" someone, you're free to do so on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or on whichever of the admin noticeboards is appropriate. You can also respond to the report about you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to defend yourself, if you like. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not creating vandalism

You're damaging the english language by allowing a Neologist, incorrect term appear on a popular website when a more correct term already exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt606 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you about the quality of the Theorycraft article, but your edits still constitute vandalism. If you want to handle it in a more constructive way, you can nominate the article for deletion or start a discussion on the article's talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Arsène Wenger Good job noting the edit war. Fbifriday (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plcoopr

No

I will not

you should mind your own business...like you are getting paid or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoopr (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Problems

Hi! I am new to Wiki, and I'm still trying to work out the formatting :/ Thanks for your patience!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.244.94.37 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. I'm sorry I reverted your edit so quickly, it just really did screw up the formatting of the page. If you edit it again, I will try to fix the formatting instead of reverting you. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Category talk:Traditional knowledge

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Traditional knowledge. 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) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Bard (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bannu

I see that you and Technark-1 (talk · contribs) have been having a go at Bannu. I direct your attention to this change which caught my attention for having added over 200K to the size of the article. I don't have knowledge of the sources that you claim this text might be lifted from, and since you have been keeping an eye on this page, I thought you might like to evaluate this most recent change as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think it should reverted wholesale. I'd feel bad about doing it, because Technark-1 (talk · contribs) has obviously put a lot of work into it, but I still suspect a lot of it was copied out of the book he cites. Many of my previous edits were to remove massive quotes from the book, but I only knew that because Technark-1 (talk · contribs) had identified them as such in previous versions of the page. (I know direct quotes are allowed if attributed, but these were such big blocks of text that I felt they might go beyond what would be allowed under fair use.) In addition to the potential copyright problems, most of the content is not directly relevant to the article. The article is meant to be about the city of Bannu, but now reads as an extensive history of the entire region. I tried to engage Technark-1 (talk · contribs) on the article's talk page to no avail. Do you think I should go ahead and revert the whole shebang? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'd say a revert is in order, and then an attempt to engage Technark in the consensus process. If that user won't engage in discussions, it might be a matter for administrative intervention. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenesis

I find it strange that "Origin of Life" redirects to abiogenesis. This isn't a known truth, and therefore should not be displayed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.43.218 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. Your edits were still disruptive, though, and I wasn't the only one to revert you. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bannu

Technark-1 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (Technark-1 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) I edited Bannu page but some pictures were uploaded from sites already on Wikipedia. It took me two consecutive days to mend the site. I am my self writer of a book on Bannu which is under publication. However, since I am new user, some in-deliberate faults were committed for which I am sorry as I do respect the wiki rules. when I came to know that taking one odd images from other sites is prohibited, I tried to copy the text I had written, but it was over. can i have the complete copy of the text as the record of that is not with me. Doubtlessly, the aim was to educate people and nor to wink at the site. can you help me in getting back my text. I shall refine it as per Wikipedia requirement. Thanks.[reply]

I'm guessing that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/History of the Tribes of Bannu really belongs at Talk:Bannu. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family Research Institute

First, I did not add commentary or my own personal analysis to the Family Research Institute page.
Second, the page is highly biased as it is, stating conclusions unsubstantiated, like "discredited".
Third, while perhaps more and better sources could be found, the page is in desperate need of sources that offer an alternative point of view to what is there now, which is really nothing more than a compilation of attacks.
Please do not protect such clear bias.Yeoberry (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the research is "discredited" is very well supported by the accompanying sources. The page is not a compilation of attacks, it is a compilation of what reliable sources have to say about the FRI. And I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Edit warring before continuing to revert the other editors at the article. Consider opening a discussion on the article's talk page to address your concerns. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions here are simply wrong. One of the main sources is nothing more than gleanings from a blog, not a reliable source. There are no reliable sources that support a sweeping conclusion that the research is "discredited". There are opinions and other opinions that counter that. You accept the verdict of sources that fit the agenda you are trying to further and suppress those that do not fit your agenda. If you cannot hold yourself back from using wikipedia to further your political agenda I suggest you cease from editing.Yeoberry (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this kind of issue - the sourcing and content of the article - is at the article's talk page, where anyone who is interested in the topic willl see it and be able to participate. I'm not going to continue to discuss the specifics here, and there is already a discussion taking place there. Please consider reading WP:CIV AND WP:AGF; you are making some big, unfounded accusations here. And thank you for your kind advice, but I will not stop editing Wikipedia. I've been here for a very long time, and I like it here, and I certainly won't be bullied away over something like this. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yeoberry's talk page history makes interesting reading. I thought I'd reverted at the list article but you beat me to it. Edit warring over multiple articles after a number of previous warnings is not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at WP:3RRN. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

abiogenesis

I have reviewed the policies on editing and I'm sorry but I do not find anywhere where my edit violated any of these rules. Could you please elaborate on why you reverted my edit? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/eznight (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit claimed that Intelligent Design is scientific. Check out the consensus and sources at Intelligent design to see why that assertion is not supported by reliable sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the 8 criteria, in the intelligent design article, for a theory to qualify as science and intelligent design meets all of them. However, from reading the article I have also become aware that sadly Wikipedia is not an impartial source. It is always sad to know when any institution is repressive of knowledge no matter what side one is on. I do hope that one day Wikipedia will be impartial. Until then, Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eznight (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accurately and impartially reflects what reliable scientific sources have to say about intelligent design. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intelligent design scientists have never labeled evolution non-science even while elucidating some of the inadequacies of the full theory of evolution. Likewise the evolution community should be fully capable of elucidating any shortcomings of intelligent design while not labeling ID as non-science simply because they do not like it, since ID does meet the 8 criteria. Therefore the scientific sources you reference are biased. Bias should not exist in either of the two scientific disciplines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eznight (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about the quality of the sources at Abiogenesis or Intelligent design or anywhere else, the best place to discuss it is on the respective article talk pages. ID isn't science, and I'm not going to debate that here on my talk page. I'm sure you know you don't need my permission to reinstate the edit of yours that I reverted. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Territory of Trieste (English, French, German and Spanish articles)

There is someone called "Aarska" who continues to modify the article "Free Territory of Trieste", pretending that this territory still exists as an independent state, while in the truth it was divided between Italy and Yugoslavia for a first time not definitively in 1954 and definitively in 1975. Since then Zone A of the former Free Territory belongs to Italy and Zone B of the former Territory belonged until 1991 to Yugoslavia and since that year to Slovenia and Croatia. "Aarska" argues that the Peace Treaty between United Nations and Italy, signed in 1947, that put in force the Free Territory, can't ever be modified and so the Free Territory still exists. Obviously this is not the truth, a peace treaty can be modified by the according of two or more countries involved in it, and that modifications get into value unless a third country claims against it. That has been not the case, therefore the Osimo Treaty between Italy and Yugoslavia is valid and the Free Territory doesn't exist any more. It is sufficient to get a glance in the similar articles of Italian and Slovenian/Croatian Wikipedia to read the correct history. What can be made to prevent further illogical and untrue modifications by "Aarska"? Thanks!

This is the sort of thing that you need to hash out on the article's talk page instead of just reverting each other back and forth. Noe of what you've written is justification for an edit war, and the constant reversions are just bad for the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture

I was in the process of getting all that together. You can make the change, because this interface is new and confusing. Do you want the info?(Srodrigu (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination of Steven Crowder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Crowder 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/Steven Crowder (3rd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article.

I hope you may look at the discussion, and possibly add your contribution. Thanks Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. 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) 18:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want destroy your work, but I want to know from where you have information that Total Fertility Rate in Turkey for 2012 is 1,90. This table for Turkey I made that's why I'm asking. I'm sorry for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.217.192.27 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time...

Regarding Madkhalism, then the information posted by Abu abdullah 05 seems to be copy pasted from Fatwa-Online.com, an English-language Madkhalist website. While the guy seems to legitimately not know site policy, I wouldn't be surprised if similar behavior is seen on that article as well as articles for Salafism and Rabee Madkhali himself. Nothing against the user personally, but I'm sure you've seen on Islam-related articles that this behavior sometimes happens in short spurts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MezzoMezzo. I've added it to my watch list so I. Can keep an eye on it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation

Hello, I'm Dawn Bard. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sexual orientation without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dawn, you stated that “the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice“ is not accurate. There is no consensus.

I will correct this error and add my references for the revision.

Thanks, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawljo (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, I did not state that “the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice," per se, I just restored the very well sourced information that you deleted from the article without explanation. I'm not going to debate the scientific consensus on sexual orientation on my talk page. If you have suggestions for improving the article, the place to discuss them is on the article's talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded here when reverting Hawljo. Stating that scientists are not sure about what causes sexual orientation, which the lead already states, is different than stating that there is no scientific consensus about whether or not it is a choice. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I would have made that same revert myself if you hadn't beaten me to it. I mean, NARTH as a source? I think not. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate you helping out with this article. I started a discussion about this topic on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edits on mujaddid

allright i wont make further editions, can you tell me why you deleted my edits? have you even read the article. have you browsed the sources i provided? i am asking you to revert the article back....regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.153.221 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the one who is making a huge change to the article, and you have been reverted by several users now, maybe you're the one who should consider explaining your edits. (And the place to do it is on the article's talk page, not here.) I will say you are likely to keep getting reverted if you continue to replace information that has a good variety of reliable sources with information sourced to a wordpress blog. Self-published sources like blogs are not considered reliable. And even if you had provided a reliable source, you didn't explain why you deleted so much other sourced material. I suggest you open up a discussion on the article's talk page if you have suggestions for improving the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robison Family Murder

Dawn would you help us upload and insert a picture for our Robison entry? Thank you, Dr. John H. Watson (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.175.178 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robison Family Murders citation update

It was a 1967 family picture obtained from the Michigan State Police case evidence file CR 4114-08-785-66

I have successfully uploaded it on WIKI at File:Robison family 1967.pdf Would you please insert it back in the article for me? I am afraid of losing all my work if I attempt this.

Thank You ! Eugene Francois Vidocq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Francois Vidocq (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ngunalik (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)LRA article[reply]

Hi Dawn

I have been editing the article of LRA, I am still working on it. Please check later and let me know if you are ok with the new sources of information that I am adding.

Regards Ngunalik (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi Dawn,

I receievd a message from you regarding setting up of my new page. I am the director of Faux Face Group so I was wondering what I needed to do to be able to keep the page.

Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Natalie — Preceding unsigned comment added by FauxFaceGroup (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midsouth Shooters Supply Deletion

Hello! Not sure why we are getting deleted, I understand I may have it in the wrong category, but not sure how other companies can offer pages as well and not be deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MidwayUSA

I am new to this process - so please help me to understand.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidsouthShootersSupply (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The issue is that you aren't supposed to use your userpage for promotion (WP:UP#PROMO), and that you aren't supposed to have a username that is the same as a company or organization (WP:CORPNAME). Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CenturyLink Field edits

Edits made to century link field involve unsourced or badly sourced information on crown noises. I have mentioned it in the past that the sources were of bad quality and most of it was heresay. I've been in an editing battle with some Seattle fans who insist on reverting my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.115.248.21 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I suggest that you open a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus, though, and explain your edits the edit summary so it doesn't get mistaken for vandalism. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy of the Popes

As I have explained to multiple users, this section was both properly sourced and notable. I honestly don't understand why you folks keep removing it. Twarwick666 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. It's being discussed on the article's talk page, I'm not going to go over it again here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Canvas

Hi Dawn,

Kindly review my article creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Empty_Canvas

I hope this article will be approved.

Thanks! Onlyalive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyalive (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your article is not likely to be approved if you can't demonstrate the band's notability using reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Dispute Resolution

Dear "Dawn Board". This is in reference to the article "Greater Middle East". In the "View history" section, I see (cur | prev) 18:39, 4 March 2013‎ Dawn Bard (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,190 bytes) (+16,279)‎ . . (Undid revision 541980908 by 99.235.25.103 (talk) unexplained deletion of sourced material) (undo)

In fact, I have explained the deletion twice in the TALK section under "Relevance of article". This article has been consistent in context from 2006 until February 2013. For the last few weeks, an attempt is being made to generalize the article to the extent of triviality.

I have opened a dispute resolution for this case which you can see at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Greater_Middle_East — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.25.103 (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments there about your participation, per your request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time Dawn Bard. I will try to engage WashingtonPrime again in the talk section. (Apologies if I did not follow the right protocol in inviting you to the dispute. Best! 99.235.25.103 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

Hi Dawn, I received your message regarding edit war with JudgementfromGod also the same person with the IP address 197.255.163.84. Most of the references presented in his version are null. Others are not related. to comments made on the Wiki page of "Harold Demuren". JudgementfromGod aka 197.255.163.84 keeps reverting the whole page back to his version. Also, deleted the whole page at one point. onetime10 15:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetime10 (talk • contribs)

I requested semi-protection when he was still using his IP, but that seems moot now. Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 15:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Onetime10, I removed the 3RR warning from your page and reported our "friend" for edit warring. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the help. onetime10 16:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetime10 (talk • contribs)

Article Probation notification

I know you're aware of the Article probation, I'm just making a Diff for the log book.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Computus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Computus. 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) 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you Dawn for your efforts! It seems like every time I see something and think, "That's a problem, someone should fix that..." and don't have time to do it myself, within a few minutes, you've reverted it, PROD'd it, AFD'd it, reported it to AIV, or explained it. `Zad68` 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! *blushes* Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawn Bard:

I was trying to contribute to the Trabectome's richness (registered mark) of NeoMedix Corporation, that has developed and commercialized the niche revolutionary technology. However, you and your colleagues have chosen to delete twice under the "advertising" reason. Just as FEDEX, UPS, XEROX, etc. have their respective histories and facts and mentioned in Wikipedia with fullest details, how can the Trabectome Procedure (which has contributed heavily in the world of glaucoma) be not explained in terms of its intended uses (particularly from the US FDA perspective?. I request that one of your deletions/edits be undone.

If you want, we can have further conversation/discussion regarding the above. My contacts are listed below.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards / Cordialement / 宜しく/ Met vriendelijke groet / ד 'ש / Saludos cordiales / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / 最誠摯的問候,

Amarjit S. Jowandha

Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs & Quality Assurance

NeoMedix Corporation

15042 Parkway Loop, Suite A

Tustin, CA 92780-6528, USA

Tel: (714) 258-8355 Ext. 116

Fax: (714) 258-8356

ajowandha@neomedix.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.164.158 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvio de Lellis

Actually it was misspelled, as a note on Talk page said; "maestro Silvio de Lellis" renamed and sourced and unsourcable (and almost certainly incorrect) claim that father was an admiral removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Just wanted to say hi to you, since I've run into you a couple of times now doing vandalism patrols. Keep up the good work! Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 20:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you, too, Sitethief! Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church and "civilization"

Dawn, I have swapped all "civilisation" spellings to "civilization". This isn't to unnecessarily swap language from British to American, but because all pages linked use the American English version rather than British. This may confuse some, and to prevent this, American English should be used universally unless all are changed to British. Consistency should not only be used within articles but also across articles. As you said, this is an international webpage, therefore, consistency across pages is important to those who don't natively speak English. If one is changed, all should be changed.

Regards, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.168.91 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, thanks for commenting here. If you check out the relevant section of the Manual of Style, you'll see that it's Wikipedia policy to allow different variations of English. When an article is about something that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the corresponding version of English is used - so the article about Queen Elizabeth II is in British English and the article about California is in American English, for example. But for other articles, any variant is acceptable, though consistency within any given article is favoured. (...favored.)

Anyway, all that said, I'm not going to get into an edit war at Catholic Church, and if you restore your changes, I'm not going to revert you. Consider checking out MOS:RETAIN, though, which states "disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged" and "when an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary."

Please feel free to comment here again if you have any questions or concerns. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn, what you said makes complete sense. I didn't mean to disrespect any variant of the English language, I simply thought it would get confusing with linking, where the hyperlinked text includes the British form of the word, while the actual page contains the American English form. That is all. Because you are much more experienced in editing on Wiki, I will let you direct the page in the way you think is best.

Regards, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.168.91 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up articles.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to ECOLEX

Dear Dawn Bard

according to your message you have removed an ECOLEX link which was added to the Lake Victoria article.

ECOLEX is a non-profit, non-commercial website which offers free of charge for users worldwide comprehensive information and documents on environmental law (national legislation, treaties, court decisions, literature). The purpose is to build capacity and inform students, other researchers and decision makers in the area of policy and law. The portal ECOLEX is fed and jointly managed by IUCN, FAO and UNEP. All well known and highly recognized international organizations -- two are UN organizations.

There are several conventions related to the Lake Victoria available in ECOLEX (bibliographic information plus full texts) and we only wanted to inform the interested reader about this.

We kindly request your permission to add such links to ECOLEX.

Regards Anni Lukács IUCN-Environmental Law Centre ECOLEX Management Unit — Preceding unsigned comment added by IUCN-ELC (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a new user shows up and their only edits are to add links to the same website to dozens of articles, it looks very much like spamming. It looks like you are here to promote your site rather than to help build an encyclopedia. If you want to add the links back I won't stop you, but i wasn't the only one to revert you, so you might consider explaining, on the article's talk page, why you think the article absolutely needs a link to ECOLEX. And check out WP:EL. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI. 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) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2013

Harry Reems seems to be listed twice - perhaps that explains the deletion ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops! Good catch, Derek - sorry about that. This is why I wish people would use edit summaries. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it by pure chance - you are dead right though about edit summaries. No damage done. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stroopwafels!

Hello! Sitethief has given you some stroopwafels to munch on while blasting vandals in to outer orbit. Stroopwafels are given to people who spend day and night fighting vandalism and could use a break munching on something delicious. Happy munching!

_{No idea what stroopwafels are? Read up on these delicious syrup filled Dutch waffles: Stroopwafels}

Spread the goodness of stroopwafels fueled vandalism fighting by adding {{subst:Plate_of_Stroopwafels}} to someone's talk page.

Conflict in Turkey

You stated in your message to me that I could edit the article of Kurdish–Turkish conflict if I provide reliable sources. So did I. But Kolega2357 undid my changes to backwards again. I don't get it why.

This new stuation (the call for an end of armed struggle declared today) in Turkey is huuuge, by the way. The nation is at a changing of course of history, in case you guys don't realise that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.16.230 (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I reverted the article to my edits. Most of the waterfalls of Belize do not have articles, so links are being used in the meantime. They are as amazing as any waterfalls anywhere, it's just that they have not been given articles for whatever reason(?). Still they should be known about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgbk1987 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links are still spam as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, so I won't remove them again. Have you considered writing articles about the waterfalls yourself? There's no reason they don't have articles other than the fact that nobody has written them. There's lots of good info about writing an article here: Wikipedia:Your first article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which evidence

Please refer me the area of map and page number of various publications from which I have synthesizedMaria0333 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]