User talk:Dawn Bard
|This is Dawn Bard's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Dawn Bard.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
"So fix it"...
Hey Dawn, sorry if this attempt at a bit of humor on my part made you feel put on the spot, wasn't my intent if so. But, thought behind it wasn't a joke--you generate a lot of work for the admins patrolling WP:AIV, WP:UAA, etc. to handle, and I think it'd be more efficient if you could handle those sorts of actions yourself. Please consider it... cheers!
Zad68 14:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Zad, no apologies necessary. I was just surprised anyone really noticed me, but I'm definitely flattered by the suggestion. I did go and check out the RFA process after your comment - so it seems you've planted an idea in my head. You're right about efficiency - a lot of the spam/promotional accounts I report to UAA are so blatant that it would be pretty uncontroversial to just zap them myself if I had the ability. Anyway, all this to say I'm considering it. Thanks! Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you wanted a co-nominator, let me know. Since I've become an admin, I've come across your reports and tags on a regular basis, and everything points to the fact that you would make an excellent admin. You and I have both been involved with Wikipedia for about the same time, we both have done work in similar semi-administrative areas, and I just came through a very successful RFA - and I think you are even more qualified. Plus, another Canadian admin would just be a bonus... :) Just send me an email if an RFA is something that interests you. Singularity42 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you given any more thought...
- (Wow, that was nearly a year ago!) Yes, I have, I must say. Especially today, when it would have been really nice to just block the penis-pics guy instead of having to report him and keep reverting. Maybe it's time for an RfA? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I removed your A7 tag on this article because it wasn't an appropriate use of A7. Even though the article is unsourced, the claims made in it are credible (i.e. the film exists and IMDB at least confirms the subjects connection), and they could lead to the subject being determined notable at AfD. agtx 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You recently deleted my edit to Dianetics. You picked up that I am a supporter of Dianetics, this is true. I am also a supporter of truth. When I saw the most recent definition of Dianetics on Wikipedia I cringed. This definition is going out to millions so it is important that it is accurate. I know that wikipedia is also concerned with having the facts straight. So to support and help you help inform the world I would like to have the definition changed to what it says in the Dianetics book. I simply quoted exactly want it says on page one of my Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health book.
As for it being a pseudo science I can say this. A science has to work to be a science. When Bill Gates says a computer works a certain way or a program works a certain way, it wasn't because he said it would but because it followed a natural law of that science. Everyone using a computer can see they all work a certain way and if you use it correctly you will get the same result every time. Same with every other science, it has to be workable to be a science. Dianetics works and works for everyone that applies it correctly to their lives. Millions have used it and benefited from it. I would hardly call that a pseudo science.
I hope you can see why I wanted the changes. I know you want the truth and no bias, if you look at the first page of the book Dianetics you will see that is the definition it gives. Thank you for the consideration.
Hello, LGBT parenting article
Can you please respond to my talk points on the LGBT Parenting Article talk page? There are some there from other users that deleted my work also. I think a dialog is in order and should be the first step in dispute resolution. Looking forward to hearing back from you. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)