User talk:Dawn Bard

Sayan Bera Page

Hi! This page Sayan Bera is about a real person living at Kolkata and awarded as the Youngest coder of the state ( West Bengal ). He is also the owner of a company named SBPixel. ( The Page explains about these too ). So I would like to know if the page is allowed to be continued?

Neil Degrasse Tyson edit

Hi! I saw you reverted a change made to the Neil Degrasse Tyson page that added a section on a fabricated quote controversy. I'm glad you did as I thought that needed to be done. Since I'm super new as an editor, I'd like to get your insight as to what made you remove that revision? I'm hoping the reasons you pulled it jibe with why I wanted to as confirmation that I'm understanding some of the rules, esp. On the living persons biographies.

Also, you suggest discussing on that pages talk page. What's the protocol there?mahould invoice support for leaving that section off till it can be re-worked or let the person who made the changes defend them first?

Thanks! I'm on my ipad and don't seem to have a tilde for signing this! nor is there the usual editing tools above this edit box for liking to content. But I am Axis42. Hope you can respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axis42 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"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)

Great! I'll be watching this space. Zad68 18:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I second that, having run into you lots at UAA, and thereabouts. Matty.007 19:21, 12 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)

Brandon Wynn

My bio on Brandon Wynn keeps getting taken off. What can I do so this bio stays online, Lorraine Lorrainedaversa (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit

You reverted Jpendergraph (talk · contribs) when xe blanked Computer Simulated Universes Evolutionary Hypothesis. Since Jpendergraph is the only author to have made any substantial edits to this page, can we not interpret this page blanking as an implicit request to delete (per WP:CSD#G7)? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Speedy delete at the author's request seems appropriate here. Sorry about that. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Blatant censorship

I take issue with your labeling my comments as "vandalism" on the article about Obama's birth records/citizenship. I very clearly didn't argue with anything stated in the article. I only pointed out that the article was putting things forth as being proven fact, when that isn't the case because it's an argument with two sides and neither side has proven anything. What you've said to us, by removing my comments, is that it is perfectly ok to be biased and misleading as long as it's in support to the state, and that if it is critical it will be removed within minutes. If I had posted something similarly critical in an article about evidence of bigfoot's existence, you wouldn't have stopped me. This was an experiment, and I really must thank you because we learned something about your website and my suspicions were verified. Time to spread the word. Have a nice day. Joshgrimes55 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the bias in an article, the place to do it is on the article's talk page. If you had put a similar unsourced claim of bias in the Bigfoot article or any other, I would have reverted it too. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would advise you, Josh, to read WP:FRINGE, an explanation of why we do not have an obligation to give equal time to fringe theories of any kind, whether about Dwight Eisenhower being a Soviet agent, or human-chimpanzee hybrids, or the Earth being hollow. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi Dawn,

I wonder how you can call my edit vandalism. The contents of LGBT rights in Nigeria appears to be highly bias and full of unbalanced propagandist opinion. For example, LGBT rights is not consensually regarded as under the realm of "Human rights". There is no global consensus and it definitely not regard so in Nigeria (and majority of the world). Secondly, it is bias and propaganda to label a set of opinions as obligations as there is no international obligation that Nigeria is signatory to. Thirdly, there is no record of torture or legalisation of torture of LGBT people in nigeria so the entry on torture is just there to whip up sentiments.

I changed all these to a neutral language. How is that vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.61.66 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Deleting well-sourced information without explanation is vandalism. If you think the article has problems, you should use the article's talk page to discuss and seek consensus. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jainism

I know more about Jainism. I have provided enough explanation for the content i have posted. Will try to improve further. But how can i provide source to a printed text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshujain.2792 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please check out the guidelines on sources, and the instructions on how to cite sources, including books. For discussion on specifics about your text, the article's talk page is the best place to continue; a discussion has already been started. Note that sourcing was not the only problem mentioned - there were concerns about undue weight, the quality of the writing, context and the use of unexplained terms. But let's continue this at the article's talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

vandalism?

I seem to have some bugs to work out in the use of wikipedia. I'm still not good at it. And after what I've experienced here with the hostility and contensious behavior of others, I have no plans to make an account and stay, or for that matter, ever donate. Judging by the behavior of every other person I've met here, you all seem to think that anyone who doesn't make an account must be some kind of vandal who's bent on destroying something. So I doubt you'll believe this, but I had made a comment in reply to what people had said to my comments, then decided against it and deleted MY comments, not theirs. That their comments were deleted I can only explain as my own mistake and failure to use the interface properly. I apologize about that, it wasn't intended, but maybe you can understand that this interface is clunkier than a 30 year old tractor. You might take note that when my comments were deleted previously, the editor did NOT give ME an apology, even though he allowed the same comment to stand elsewhere. There's an imbalance of power here and this is no longer a wiki. I no longer feel like this is "our" wikipedia. Now it's run by a buncha crabs. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did something to upset you, but I don't know exactly what you're talking about. I reverted an edit of yours to a talk page, I gather? I apologise if I labelled it as vandalism when it appears it was just a mistake - I don't have any problem believing you; I make mistakes here all the time. Oh, and it was not to do with the fact that you edit as an IP; I would have reverted a signed-in user who deleted the comments of others from a talk page, I assure. I may or may not be a crab, but I'm definitely not one of the people "running" Wikipedia. Again, my apologies. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Mick Jones deletion

Hi, I saw my entry had been deleted, while I understand that it was a slightly surreal edit I can actually confirm that this information came from the man himself at a Q&A I attended last friday with the surviving members of the Clash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealbarryshitpeas (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that, then, but your addition was still unsourced. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all content, especially in biographies of living people. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Monte Carlo Methods in Finance

Dear Dawn Bard,

my addition to the Monte Carlo Method article was reverted by you. I would like to know why a freely available online Course on the exact topic is not eligible for the article mentioned. The Link, again, is https://iversity.org/courses/monte-carlo-methods-in-finance - feel free to check it's legitimacy.

It would be great if the link could be held up.

Thank you very much,

Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxSchumacher (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Max. I'm not doubting its legitimacy. I deleted the link because there's a note in the External Links of section that article that says explicitly not to add any more external links; notes like that are generally there because the article in question attracts an excess of spam links. Please check out Wikipedia's external links guidelines, and consider taking a look at why Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

no header

Bangalore Page-

Hi Dawn, I saw that you had restored a para in the Bangalore Wiki contents. I would like to elaborate on why i would like to delete the same. There should not be any reason to put a sub topic "Slums" when you look for information about the city. I have not seen the same with any other city in India & i felt this is a job of somebody who doesn't like the city. I would suggest you can remove the same, but you still want to keep it I am fine.

Regards, Naveen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenspatil (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

no header

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9/23/13 Ms. Bard: This is getting worse; not better! I am not an expert on Wikipedia but it looks like my name both "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer" are:”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996.” I currently also have two listings instead of one when I type my name/s on Google. It is ridiculous that my name is only “”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996.” The campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. Why have you only posted information about the U.S. Senate Race 1996 when anyone types my name? If that is the way you want to put my name on Wikipedia, I would like it taken off completely or deleted. A short vita follows. 161 Words THERESA NANGLE OBERMEYER, Ph.D., has held Alaska Type A Teaching Certificate since 1979 and Alaska Real Estate Broker’s License since 1979. She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution. She majored in Political Science and minored in History, English, and Education at Maryville University from which she graduated 1967, St. Louis, Missouri. She graduated from Villa Duchesne High School, 1963. Dr. Obermeyer held public office on Anchorage School Board 1990-94 and prior to that taught at McLaughlin High School 1984-90. She was her Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996. She has been a college administrator at four colleges in three states including Lindenwood University, Loyola University Maryland, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, and University of Alaska. She taught Introduction to Sociology at Chapman University Fort Richardson/Elemndorf part-time 1981-1993. She was a Fulbright Fellow twice to India 1974 and to Jordan 1977. She is married with four adult children. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [text removed]

If Wikipedia is unwilling to investigate the above, please take “Theresa Obermeyer” and “Theresa Nangle Obermeyer” off Wikipedia.

Am I writing too much? The main thing is to expose how corrupt Alaska Permanent Fund Board is but maybe it is too long.

Any help you can give in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Hi. The issue is being discussed [here]. There's nothing I can do myself; I'm not an admin. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC) NO, YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE.

Aryaka Networks vandalism

Please advise on what can be done to stop/prevent continuous vandalism of sourced content of this website. They seem to remove all mentions that I added without comments, including government and patent references. I dont know who these people are or what group they belong to but it seems to be a concerted effort to change history Rajeevb3 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please advise what I can do here. These vandals go at this site every 2 weeks and remove my name as founder and cited references. They have done the same thing 6 times. Rajeevb3 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Revision To Rabbi Article

Hi Dawn , you recently sent a message to 71.42.80.130 about a revision to the "Rabbi" entry. This IP belongs to the Taylor, Texas Early College High School. I will try to determine who wrote what they wrote and have a word with them regarding anti-Semitism, but with this many high school students all using the same connection, that task may be impossible. At any rate, you have my apologies. 71.42.80.130:71.42.80.130 08 October 2013.

About LoudSoundGH Page

Hi, I wanted to create a wiki about LoudSoundGH and had a message you said it should be removed... I am all new to this and to the best of my Knowledge I thought wikipedia is to summarize what something is about and the purpose it serves as well as its achievements... I would be glad if you can give me some guidelines to us. I dont know if this is the right place to send this message. If it is, i will want more guidance from you. Thank you

LoudSoundGH (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see Wikipedia:Your first article, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for starters :) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Zaza people by Curdman

There was some critique in my text, possible that's not how you edit a Wikipedia text. I'm new to this so bear with me.

But i want you to know this: We kurds have no intention of calling other minorities for kurds. As we our selves are minorities we respect other minorities background. As you may or not may know of it the kurds have been oppressed by turkish government for a long time. They use to deny that we even existed and now although they have recognized us to a degree, they are trying to divide our people by creating a false history for them as they have done with zaza people. They work hard for this, on the internet they have created sites info as support for their false history. They do all of this just to show the world that we are a small and an insignificant minority, which is not true, there is around 30 million Kurds.

Zaza people are kurdish people that speaks a kurdish dialect known as dimili. Everything i wrote about zaza people was basically from the book Historical Dictionary of the Kurds by MICHAEL M. GUNTER.

Now i ask you to show me how to write that article in a more acceptable wikipedia way?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdman (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 

Please comment on Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Acu page

I checked the edit history again. The only clean version I could find is this version. See Talk:Acupuncture#No consensus for disputed source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleon Skousen

Greetings!

The problem that is developing on the Cleon Skousen page is that a New Yorker article on Skousen is being cited for a great deal of material that describes the man as a "nut case" and "off" on the facts. It loses its credibility by not informing on the opposing viewpoint. Those agreeing with the "nut case" position will support the inclusion of that material. Those opposed will just be angry, wondering why other facts are not addressed. While you cite the materials removed as well sourced, sourcing a biased article does not advance truth, only a personal point of view. The tone is not neutral. Controversies, if they must be addressed, should have both positions represented, or leave it off until opposing viewpoints can be prepared. I am in personal contact with the family, and have been given access to opposing viewpoints that they said I may put on-line. Until that point, I will be anxious to see that personal agendas on this page don't turn what should be a neutral presentation into a forum for character assassination.

A few things that I've learned so far:

Fired from Chief of Police: The mayor's charges against Skousen were all dropped and never proven in subsequent audits and investigations. He called Skousen names. This too unravels because of a letter from all the police officers and staff that thanked him for his leadership and acknowledged that personal agenda politics was the driving force in his being fired, not personal character.

FBI: Ernie Lazar has a personal problem with Skousen, for unknown reasons. The FBI files assertions do not present the full facts, and as presented give a biased viewpoint. The official memos connecting Skousen to extremist right-wing groups was initially quoted in a memo as a personal opinion of one individual who was later dismissed from the FBI. That opinion became circulated in follow-up memos without the clarification that it was a personal opinion, thereby giving the appearance that the conclusion was the official FBI position.

I am told by the family that much of this is being included in a new introduction to The Naked Communist.

There is more, but it will take me time to dig through the material. In the meantime, please contact me if needed. I don't want to see Wikipedia credibility tarnished by POV issues clouding the facts, and the New Yorker article and the Salon.com article have many factual errors that I am laboring to bring to light.

Corrections2014 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

August 12-Robin Williams

Why did you accept [1] when sources and even the Wikipedia article say that Williams died on the 11th? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

By mistake. Happens to the best of us. Sorry. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to know that it is not my mistake. Happy editing! Piguy101 (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

SoundScry

Hey Dawn,

My post was flagged. Did not mean to break any rules. I am pretty sure that wikipedia allows company profiles. How do you post a profile?

Brett — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundScry (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@SoundScry: (talk page stalker) The page was deleted because it appeared to be blatant promotion or advertising. It is unlikely that you can write the page in a neutral point of view, so I recommend that you don't try again. Piguy101 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal analysis

Funny, but were my "personal" analysis pro-Black, aligned with Wikipedia's standard to-the-left-of-Andy-Warhol stance, I'm sure you'd have had zero criticism. If you don't want people voicing opinions anent this highly charged issue, then don't leave the page publicly writable. 73.49.1.133 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for personal opinion, commentary or analysis of any kind. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona Chair

Dawn,

Could you please explain how the reference link I posted is considered spam?

"Reproductions proliferate worldwide and are sold under different marketing names."

The statement above should provide some reference to any site selling the same chair under a different marketing name.

Zubidoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubidoo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zubidoo, thanks for asking. First of all, a link to any single retailer of reproductions does not support the assertion you quoted above. Secondly, adding a link to a commercial to more than one article as you did comes across as citation spamming, something companies do for search engine optimization. If you want to make a case for including the link, I'd suggest using the article's talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you given any more thought...

...about what was discussed here? Zad68 20:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(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)

Automatically Accepted

Hi Dawn. Thanks for accepting my edit that fixed the site problem. How can I find out who restricted the "automatic acceptance" of my edits on the James Foley article and why? Worldedixor (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! The ability to have edits automatically accepted, and to accept the edits of others, on "pending changes" pages comes with reviewing permission, which you can request here. So if you've never requested reviewer status, it's not that you're being restricted, exactly; you're in the same boat as most users. My understanding is if you have an editing history that shows that you understand Wikipedia's rules, I think reviewer permission is usually granted - you can check out the specifics at the links.

If you did have reviewer permission at some point, but it's been revoked, you should have been told why. If this is your situation, but you didn't get an explanation, it's best to ask an admin. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Dawn... I will ask an admin. Have a nice day. Worldedixor (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Pending changes#Effect of various protection levels they should have been able to make the edit and they made several the day before. There are several odd things about this, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Pending changes oddity and the section below it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That is odd. Thanks for looking into it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

New matter

Why did you remove my change from Barack Obama?

With Dawn's permission, she has already said why she reverted your edit in her edit notes (click View History on the article). Please read WP:RS, you will understand that a content added needs a "reliable" source. Worldedixor (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Iran and Persia

Hi. You recently reverted an edit on the establishment of Iran and you re-inserted the old information on the Persian Empire.

I am not the one editing in the first place, but want to let you know, that we are having a lot of trouble across several pages, with an (unexplained) equalling of Iran and the Persian Empire(s). Several page-moves and edits are the planning. I would really appreciate you inputs on this topic. Were you reverting the Iran-page without thinking and just to hinder a change to the (supposedly) original text? Or do you have some serious refs on why Iran has been equalled to the Persian Empire? I am not an expert on the details of the history of this part of the world, but I dont think that Iran is a very old nation and name for that matter? Am I wrong? Why?

I am not here out of frustration or anger, but it is a very important issue and the Iran-pages gives no refs or redirections to solve it. I have tried to start a discussion on the Iran talk-page, the first discussion on the topic (!), but no one engaged.

RhinoMind (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ISO 8601

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Maria Kanellis

Hello,

I understand why you deleted the "People with ADHD" category on Maria Kanellis as I didn't put a source to it. I have two questions about it :

1. How can I put a source to a category? 2. Can I use a source that doesn't come from the Internet? Like, can I just give the references to the interview where she mentions her diagnosis even though I can't seem to find it on the web? I have it on a CD.

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldon49 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking! You can definitely use a source that is not on the internet; Wikipedia has a citation template for recorded media you can use to cite the interview.

As to sourcing a category, the rules say "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Since there's nothing in the article about her having ADHD, I'd suggest maybe she doesn't need to be in that category. You could also write a (sourced!) line or two about it in the "Personal life" section of the article, if you think it's important, before adding the category. Consider posting your intended edits on the article's talk page to see if anyone objects, and if you need to maybe discuss the issue to arrive at a consensus.

I hope this is helpful. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

apology

sorry:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.22.42 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarence Bass

I am wondering why you removed the link to the interview with Clarence Bass at Muscle & Strength and labelled it as spam while keeping the Martial Arts interview? The M&S interview was more appropriate, as it is actually as bodybuilding site. (Massiveiron (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC))

Hi. The website looks to be commercial, and you added it to a few articles without any explanation, which is something people might do for promotional reasons. Have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on external link spam. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the sources?

Hi Dawn Bard. Regarding this edit, have you read each of these sources to determine that they make such a conclusive statement as "Science considers the OBE a type of hallucination..."? Feel free to respond in the new talk page section that I opened. Thanks.- MrX 20:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

JoePa

That is what they announced last night if you would do a simple search and see the video and rally from last night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.31 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if it were true, the onus is on you to provide a reliable source when adding content to a page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Voxco article. 206.55.89.66 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)GroupVoxco 09/09/2014

YEC how is it relevant

Can you explain to me how when humans were created is relevant to when the earth was created???? DevonSprings (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As you know, there is a discussion ongoing at the article's talk page on this subject, and that is a more appropriate place to discuss it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Donaldson Williams Debt Relief

Hello...I just received a message that my page would be deleted due to the fact that it is blatant spam and advertising. I was in the middle of editing the page, trying to figure out and navigate my way through. I simply was following the format of Freedom Debt Relief, and was not given the opportunity to complete my page. Please reconsider, as I'm just learning to navigate, and the page will offer plenty of information. I just can't figure out how to navigate yet. I'm working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldson Williams Debt Relief (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

birth control

I saw a study saying that the failure rate of hormonal iud is 0.9 percent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.27 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The source that's currently in the article says 0.2. If you can cite a reliable source, the information can be changed or updated, or a range can be used (ie, 0.2 - 0.9), but without a new source, the info should stay as it is. Hope that makes sense. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How do i cite a source?199.7.159.27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) The name of the study is complications and continuation of iud use among commercially insured teenagers.199.119.235.146 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Titomirov

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alex Titomirov. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI

The editor on NDT is violating WP:COI. That alone should be enough to get the edit scrutinized. Please reconsider. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to End of Silence (Red album) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | single 2 =[Break Me Down
• 3|5}}<ref>{{Allmusic|class=album|id=r837684|first=Corey|last=Apar|title=''End of Silence'' - Red >Review|accessdate=July 6, 2011}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

About reverting the change to List of SIP Software

Hello, I saw your message regarding the your action of removing my addition of Kamailio from the List of SIP Software page. It was not intended as spam and it was for a software that is referred from the page of SIP Express Router (SER) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIP_Express_Router). The description I added to my addition is reflected accurately in that page, respectively, OpenSER was a fork of SER, then OpenSER was renamed to Kamailio and it started also (re-)integration process with SER. The work of integration was completed as announced for v4.0.0 of Kamailio (http://www.kamailio.org/w/kamailio-v4-0-0-release-notes/).

The List of SIP Software page includes SER and OpenSER, which are no longer out there and it doesn't list Kamailio which is the actual name of the project. Kamailio is also mentioned in "Comparison of VoIP software page"

At some point there was a page for OpenSER, which was removed because some editor marked the page as inappropriate many years ago. The removal happened rather recently comparing with that date, apparently there was no check to see that the software is there, being what it was claimed to be. When OpenSER page existed, Kamailio page was an alias to it (I am not familiar with the wikipedia site structure, hopefully is the right terminology -- in other words Kamailio and OpenSER pages were the same).

Maybe it is procedure the add a page for Kamailio again, eventually providing better evidence to challenge any concerns regarding the relevance, which was consider not enough many years ago. Not being native English speaker, I didn't want to start the page. I am sure community around the project can help to have a clear short description of the project for a page with adequate references. I can notify the project.

It would be very much appreciated if you can give some guidelines on how to do it. Many thanks in advance and at least I hope my message proved that the edit was not a spamming action.

Please comment on ACIM RFC Niche publisher reliability and mainstream academic views

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on 'n ACIM RFC Niche publisher reliability and mainstream academic views. 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. — Scott P. (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't revert edits without a thorough and valid reason

Hello Dawn,

I appreciate all that you do for WP to prevent vandalism.

However, I would also appreciate if you would refrain from reverting good-faith edits without a good reason, or at least without carefully documenting your disagreement with the edits, for example my edits to chinese traditional medicine and acupuncture. If there are good reasons for other users to disagree with the edits, I'm sure the community of that page will rectify this issue. I did not add any unsourced material, nor as far as I am aware break any WP policies. You said in your revert note that I have "changed/watered-down sourced material" which I think should be up to the community to decide, on the talk page, or through subsequent edits.

I believe that my edits contribute to the neutrality and relevance of the article. The conversation on the talk page explicitly invited editors to attempt to make the content more neutral. If you disagree with the way that this was done, please document this on the talk page, instead of reverting.

Thank you! 207.204.255.83 (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I provided valid reasons for my reverts, and I wasn't the only one to revert you. You didn't add unsourced material per se, but you changed sourced statements, and you deleted sourced material and at least one source. Per WP:BRD, you made bold edits on controversial pages, you were reverted by more than one user, so you should use the talk page to explain your edits and seek consensus. The lede of Traditional Chinese medicine as it stands right now is not an accurate reflection of the cited sources, and that is against Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and verifiability, whether or not you are aware of it. It is absolutely not neutral to misrepresent sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits on Master Fear of Flying app.

Hi,

I note that you recently removed additions we made to the Fear of Flying page within Wikipedia, where we referred to an app. developed by two Australian clinical psychologists that employs cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT). If you've opportunity, would you mind providing rationale for its removal. Evidently, we must have infringed on Wikipedia rules and would like to ensure that we do not infringe them again in we add other info. including research papers pertaining to CBT.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Cheers

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.27.46 (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark. My rationale, and the rationale of the admin who blocked the promotional user name, are explained fairly thoroughly here: User talk:Master Fear of Flying. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dawn Bard, Thank you for providing explanation and description of Wikipedia policy, to which will subscribe in future. 118.211.27.46 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

Hi Dawn Bard, I can see you do a lot of great work on Wikipedia, but might you have been over hasty in reverting my small edit here [[2]]? As far as I can see, all those refs establish is that at least four writers or journalists were of the opinion that est was controversial, and not that it was a fact that est per se was controversial so the sentence violated WP:NPOV by conflating opinion with fact (as I indicated in the edit summary).

Incidentally I am curious as to how you came to jump on my edit within moments when you don't appear to have any prior involvement on that page? DaveApter (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The four sources didn't just say that est is controversial without context; they explain controversies in the articles. I don't think 'controversial' is a pejorative, for what it's worth. Like, I can acknowledge that the idea of man made climate change is controversial, but that doesn't change my acceptance of climate change as a fact. I don't think it should be controversial, but I know it is, is what I'm saying. Also, since mention is made of criticism/controversy later in the Landmark article, it's appropriate to have a sentence or two about it in the lede. That said, I'm not going to get into an edit war about it if you revert me. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's clear. It does come across as pejorative (at least to me). It was not that big of a deal to me and I'm not going to revert your re-insertion. For one thing if you don't put it back, I'm pretty sure someone else will, and for another I've decided to give editing that page a break for at least a couple of weeks. Some editors who don't appear to have strong personal opinions one way or another have started to weigh in, and the article is already in much better shape than it was 24 hours ago (at least for the time being!). Cheers. DaveApter (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)