User talk:Dawn Bard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dawn Bard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  IZAK 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with you?! Leave my posts alone.

Thanks for improvement tags!

Thanks for improvement tags, references, sources, links were added. Cleanup as well! Natkersh (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks SOOO much! >_< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.242.246 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Perpetua

There was a vulgar comment on the page, but it wouldn't show up on the "edit page" settings. So I blanked it, with the intention of unblanking it a few seconds later to see if it would work. It did, but then when I checked the history, it said you unblanked it. I don't know how vandalism can be inserted without it appearing in the "edit page". Anyhow, thanks for fixing it.--192.160.64.49 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for Concordia, Kansas

Thank you for taking care of the vandalism on the Concordia, Kansas page.--Paul McDonald 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD comments

From an edit summary of one of your edits in an AfD discussion:

removing my own comment that doesn't apply anymore - the user signed the comments

He did not. I did it for him. Apparently SineBot missed this one. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I don't know why I gave that user the benefit of the doubt - thanks for catching that one, Blanchardb. --Dawn bard (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stein Industries, Inc.

What are you looking for when you patrol articles? I've listed Stein Industries, Inc. as a speedy deletion candidate under db-corp because there are no claims nor evidence of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I often will tag an article like that as unsourced and of unclear notability, then check back to see if the author adds anything. But you're right, this one is really a good candidate for deletion. --Dawn bard (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Windfall Elimination Provision

You originally tagged this article as unsourced and uncontexted. I updated the intro as well as expand upon the article greatly. Originally I put up a RFC on whether or not to remove the context tag, but there have been no responses in about 48 hours. Please review the article and see if you would be willing to remove the context tag. KV(Talk) 13:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you KV(Talk) 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New articles

Do all articles need citations or resources? My page was about a creative idea for a game which would then be the basis of research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Personjerry (talk • contribs)

• Hi Personjerry! Yes, all articles need verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or new inventions. Please have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines to find out what is appropriate for entry here, and feel free to ask me questions here. Thanks! --Dawn bard (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks.Jerry Liu (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lowry

I've noticed that you tagged this article for notability. I'm going to respectfully disagree. As the co-host of the Bill Gaither Homecoming shows and a member of the Gaither Vocal Band, Mark Lowry most certainly meets the requirements for notability. And this is without regard to any of his other accomplishments which would further meet the requirements.

I will agree with your tag for needing citations and sources but I only had the same source that the original page (Mark Lowry) was cut and pasted from. Hopefully somebody can come along and clean this up and provide other sources.

I am going to delete your notability tag. However, if you still feel that you are justified I will not get into an edit war with you over it. James084 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, I think you're right, and I might have been too hasty in tagging it. I won't add the tag back. --Dawn bard (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Shapiro

hi there, i was wondering what you feel needs to be changed on that page I just created. it is about an engineer that has gotten lots of press recently with his work (yep, me). I linked to artists I am associated with. I think I am as relavant (spelling) as "Mark Goodwin" for example... who is linked to one of the bands I link to... and his page is an ad for the drums he plays, and nothing else. Any help would be greatly appreciated... as it is still a work in progress (i hope) Thanks a bunch, and happy holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.100.182 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Germanic New Medicine

An article that you have been involved in editing, Germanic New Medicine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic New Medicine. Thank you. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How to cite sources, and The Question of "Notability"

I recently wrote up the article on Docta Buddah, keeping it as neutral and professional as I could. I understand the need for cited sources, but I'm unfamiliar with how to do that. Please show me how to follow through on that if you can.

Then there's the "Notability" deal... He's certainly not on the national level, but here in Roanoke, we're a rather isolated major city, so everything is primarily inward-looking. Most people all over the nation haven't even heard of Roanoke, so would Roanoke itself not be notable? He's fairly known within the city's hip-hop music community (which I'm not even a part of myself, as I'm a highly discriminating metal-lover). So I do want to offer a challenge on the Notability aspect. Other than that, I still want to do everything as legitimately as possible. Thanks. Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, this is Creamy3. I would like to apologize for being a jerk when I vandalized your page the other day. You were just trying to help me out with some of my contributions and I acted like a complete a-hole. Please forgive me by writing back, maybe we can be friends. User:Creamy3 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs The Definitive Collection (Deadstar album) Yahoo! Directory Nephropathy Chris Rea (album) Tennis (album) Cool (aesthetic) Dyspraxia Wired to the Moon Veba Vs Grand Central Humpers Blender (magazine) Ballads (REO Speedwagon album) Pro-Pain Wilferd Madelung Halo 3 Pushover EP Don't Be Happy... Just Worry Echolalia Divine Invitation

Cleanup Pick and roll Humayun Ahmed Number of the Beast Merge Experiential education Culture of the Philippines Mercury poisoning Add Sources KWID Duel Jewel Emily Robison Wikify Gaither Vocal Band Michael McClure Service Level Agreement Expand Distraction Polymer Cognitive therapy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary Lee LaBay

Hey,

Your marked the Mary Lee LaBay page for notability, but the notability section states: 'There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability, vel non.' her book did make it to #2 on Amazon, which has to count for something.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.87.18 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I

Hi.

You have marked this artical for deleation. Can I ask why exactly? It is a genuine music release and all the information on the page is a fact, backed up by the link on the page that I provided, so please can you let me know what else needs adding to the artical to stop it being deleated?

Thanks, Grrrreg (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fruita Mansana

User:ArnoldZippo has got a bad case of ownership on this article, and continues to remove all improvement templates, etc. without comment. Could you take a look at the history here and see whether I'm over-reacting? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:InaneTwit

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article User talk:InaneTwit, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at [[Talk:User talk:InaneTwit|its talk page]]. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Chūō Line Rapid page blanking revert

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Chūō Line Rapid: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Stripper Friends

The person who added "NEW ALBUM!" to that article... that was vandalism, not an unreferenced tidbit. I've since reverted it. Lady Galaxy 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

rollback

Hello Dawn bard.
I have noticed that you revert a lot of vandalism. Have you heard of rollback before? It allows a user to revert vandalism much faster than by undo-ing it. I think you should ask for it. I am not an admin, or I would give it to you myself. I wrote this just to let you know about the existence of rollback because before someone randomly gave it to me, I did not know it existed. If you ask for it, you should have no problem getting it, as you clearly have an excellent grasp of what constitutes vandalism. Good luck, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr.Nissanka Wijeyeratne of Sri Lanka

Hi Dawn Bard,

All services done by Dr. Nissanka Wijeyeratne to Anuradhapura had been saved in Government Agent's Official Diary, G.A.'s office, Anuradhapura,Sri Lanka & other services are saved in the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Sri Lanka. If you need any clarification regarding his services you may go through them. I assure that all details that I have included are correct.

Fitz Mackins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitz Mackins (talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr.Nissanka Wijeyeratne of Sri Lanka

Hi Nitraven,

copy to: Dawn Bard,

Below I have pointed what you needed to clarify about Dr.N.W.

1. Education

profound, which led to his popular nickname, "Walking Encyclopaedia".

In his English Poem Book article published by prof. Carlo Fonseka's article " He should be sent to Prison " & on his speech made by him on 14th June 2001 at Russian Cultural centre, Colombo 7, & article on same book by, Dr.Oswald Gomis,Dr.A.T Ariyaratne,Mr.Anura Bandaranaike & Mr.Christy Weeramantri ref. 'Ape Appachchi' Dr.NW English Poem Book

2.Emblem & National Flag of Sri Lanka

As Secretary of Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Cultural Affairs,Sri Lanka. in 1972 he headed the Emblem designed committee & his hand written notes about it are saved in ^ Department of National Archives of Sri Lanka.

Before 1972 The national Flag had 4 spear heads (called 'banku kakul' ) instead of that Dr. Wijeyeratne introduced 4 Bo Leaves so as to reflect Mettha, Karuna, Upeksha & Muditha. This too his handwritten notes are saved in ref. Department of National Archives of Sri Lanka

3.Political Career

Open University & Ruhunu University was established by Dr. Wijeyeratne & Mediacl Faculty for Jaffna University & transformed Vidyalankara & Vidyodya Pirivena's as kelaniya & Sri Jayawaradenapura Universities - all had been done when he was Minister of Higher Education Government Of Sri Lanka. ref. Ministry of Higher Education Colombo 7. Sri Lanka.

President Colleges all over the island too was done by as Minister of Education.- Ref. Ministry of Education, Sri Lanka

Meditation Board concept - as Miniaster of Justice.- ref. Ministry of Justice, Colombo 12, Sri Lanka.

Introduced the Sanghadhikarana Act on behalf of Buddhists - as Miniaster of Justice, ref. Ministry of Justice and gazzetted Kandy Sacred Area - as Minister of Justice & Unesco Affairs

His contributions for Anuradhapura - Ref. Government Agent's Official Diary, Kachcheri Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.

As Secretary Cultural Affairs establishing Polonnaruwa Sacred Area and Aluvihare Sacred Area. ref. Ministry Cultural Affairs, Sri Lanka.

Dr.Wijeyeratne also established the Sri Lanka Cultural Triangle with aid from UNESCO, and the Central Cultural Fund for preservation of National Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka. - as Minister of Justice & Unesco Affiars & Executive Board Member, UNESCO, Paris.

4. Sri Dalada Maligawa had been managed for the longest period by the Wijeyeratne family, who have served the post of Diyawadana Nilame of the Sri Dalada Maligawa for 30 years. - 1975 - 2005

5. A Friend of the Minorities

A. Muslims of Sri Lanka. The title of Quaid-e Millath was bestowed on Dr. Wijeyeratne at the International Muslim Conference ref. Fort Nightly Review on May 16th 1991, issue No. 17, published by Law & Society Trust, 3 Kynsey Terrace, Colombo 8,Sri Lanka.

B. A Friend of the Minorities full article written by Dr. Oswald Gomis published in Dr. Wijeyratne's ref. 'Ape Appachchi' Dr.NW English poem book & Sri Lanka Daily News 11th June 2007.

6.Family

A. Neranjan Wijeyeratne (ex Basnayake Nilame of Lankatilaka Vishnu Devale - Election held 1981 by Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs, ref. Department of Buddhist Affairs,Colombo,Sri Lanka.)

B.Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne (ex Acting Diyawadana Nilame - appointed by Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs - Ref. Department of Buddhist Affairs,Colombo, Sri Lanka.)

C.Mano Wijeyeratne (Plantation Services Miniaster under the President D.B. Wijetunga's Government in 1993 - Ref. Presidential Secretariat, Sri Lanka.)

I have supplied all info. which you had needed & which I confirm that all are true & correct.

Thanks & kind regards,

Fitz Mackins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitz Mackins (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about?

Why do i keep getting vandalism messages if I've never vandalised anything!? I haven't even edited wikipedia over the past few days yet I've got about 4 warnings. 212.120.248.142 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are you contributing from a shared IP? Because someone from your IP made these edits. If you would like to contribute without being mistaken for a vandal, creating an account is probably your best bet. Please don't hesitate to ask again if you have any more questions. Welcome to Wikipedia. Dawn bard (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What's a shared IP and how do I know if i have one? Also with regards to creating an account, I have tried a few time but it never works. For some reason as soon as I log out I can never log back in; it tells me i entered the wrong password and this can't be as I also tried creating a new account and using cop/paste to enter my password when creating the account and then when logging in. Still when logging in it tells me i entered the wrong password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.248.142 (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• A shared IP is usually a school and company network or proxy server. There is a lot of good info on the Why create an account page. I'm afraid that I'm useless on the technical difficulties, but Wikipedia has a good Technical FAQ page here. Again, don't hesitate to leave another note here if you have questions. Cheers! Dawn bard (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't even have to be a school or company network. Most people connected from home have a shared IP that might change every so often, such as if they're off-line for a while or there's a service outage. Unless your ISP gives you a fixed IP address and has you configure your computer to use it, you're using a dynamic IP and at any given time you can be using one that someone else was using just the day before. To the original poster: unless you create an account, Wikipedia knows you by the IP address your connection is coming from and if you're not the same person who connected using that IP address last time, Wikipedia has no way to know that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh!

Why do some people like that 204.102.100.187 user like to vandalize the same page so much? DarkZorro 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Loneliness, maybe? I seriously have no idea. Annoying, though, isn't it? Dawn bard (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warning

Dawn bard, I'm wondering why the links I contributed are being considered 'spam'. They are of much better quality than Discogs or Musicbrainz (which are linked heavily on Wikipedia). For example, one page that you reverted Laura Veirs was linking to [1] which provides information you can't find anywhere else on this artist. I would like a rationale on why they it was reverted. Thanks! Mimecuvalo (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the response I left on your talk page. Cheers, Dawn bard (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Dawn bard. So, would it be helpful to try to standardize music pages - add Discogs, Musicbrainz, TRHT links? I've looked at a lot of the artist pages and they seem fairly inconsistent in the data that they present. Mimecuvalo (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

a shiny

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting hundreds of vandalisms, Dawn bard is awarded this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Congratulations, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds 16:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

KKK...

No, I know it is unclear. I said its unclear because the intro of the paragraph is not written well. I'm saying don't rewrite that paragraph but where the problem lies.

GordonUS (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR nomination

Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

76.19.17.91

Vandalbot has already tattled on him at AIV. He's dead already. HalfShadow (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already reported him

He's a dead man typing. HalfShadow (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Long Road To Life

Why is Long Road To Life up for deletion. Broadway91 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ya its got over a 100 views, very notable!!--YooTuba (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you see it my way. Broadway91 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting the vandalism on my user page.
--Badgernet (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I was just retuning the favour, really - You reverted vandlism to my user page first, so thanks for that! Dawn bard (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto :) --Badgernet (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Psychosis

Hi Dawn bard. Can you please let me know why you reverted my citation on the History section. Thanks Rockyar88 (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rocky, I'm sorry, I should have explained this in the edit summary. It just looked, I don't know, strange - "Our lives in 2014, a Recovery vision from people with experience of mental illness" kind of sounds like you might be citing personal experience or original research or something. Is it a book? An article? Maybe that could be make more clear in the citation. You are, of course, free to add it back - I won't revert it again, and you can see if anyone else questions it. Let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, --Dawn bard (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dawn, and thanks for the feedback on my citation. Perhaps I'll explain more in the citation, or I might further add to the page itself. Yes it is a booklet and it was produced with the assistance of the Mental Health Commission here in NZ, and was in fact written as a collaboration between many people who had experienced mental illness. Cheers, and thanks again. Rockyar88 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Meade13

You seem to have made a mistake in warning User Talk:Meade13 for an article he did not edit (which you may want to correct). I had already given him a level4 for his repeated vandalizing of Global Warming. Please report him to AIV if he persists, to alert admins. Thanks. -- Alexf⁴² 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, that was my mistake, and it has been reverted. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. It was just a heads up. -- Alexf⁴² 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage.

It's appreciated. Ziggy Sawdust 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Best Action?

I see you reverted some edits done to the page on the band Glass Casket. I had changed the article because the initial link to Glass Casket is dead. I am new here, so I may not be familiar with best practices. If this is the wrong way to go about communication, or if you can offer suggestions or point me in the right direction, all the better. Thank you!

Split (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, Dawn Bard, for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shenanigans

I believe the IP was trying to draw your attention to a rather substantial deletion out of that article, which gave at least the impression of uncharacteristic vandalism on your part. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know - I made a mistake on that edit and didn't catch it in time to self-revert, and the fact that the IP was making a point of drawing attention to my mistake here made me grumpy. Happens sometimes. --Dawn Bard (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page!Catgut (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How I wish I was in Sherbrook now!

God damn them all! I was told we’d cruise the seas for American gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.148.169 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider also warning vandals

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [2]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 15:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

recent report of vandalism (pro-choice article)

Hello, please see my discussion on the reverts that you made to my contributions to the pro-choice article. I wrote the section entitled "On Pro-choice article & Pro-life article" in the pro-choice discussion page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.89.72 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Narcissistic Personality Disorder Page

Sorry, I thought the link I added was far better of a resource than the second one that is on the page still under external links. If you don't think it is a valuable page that is ok. Let me know, I think it is a worthwhile one to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.198.144 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits made by 151.200.199.2

Hi, I reviewed the edits made by user 151.200.199.2 and I believe that they were good-faith edits for ADHD and Learning disabilities articles. The point you have tried to make that it was vandalism is false, as you may see here. It is the "world's leading website on learning disabilities and ADHD," according to the website's description. I reverted the edits. If there are any questions, discuss it on my talk page. Also, I strongly encourage you to read this. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to change your edit, but I stand by my assertion that this isn't an appropriate external link, and 151.200.199.2 made it look like they were spamming by adding it to more than one article. The assertion that "world's leading website on learning disabilities and ADHD" is meaningless, because they don't define what data they use to back it up. The site has a lot of information, but it is also a commercial site, with a whole host of products for sale. If I have further concerns about that link, I will discuss them at the ADHD/LD article talk pages, so that other interested parties can see the discussion. Also, if you had bothered to check my contributions, you would know that I already have a good grasp of what is and what isn't vandalism, in spite of our difference of opinion on one particular edit. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I see. Perhaps the description of the link was "over-worded?" Prowikipedians (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis Culture & Cost

Eleven years ago The Ottawa Citizen published four consecutive Editorials in four days calling for the legalization of Cannabis. Calling the Editor to commend him for such bold action, it was suggested an article be submitted for payment if published on the Op-Ed page. On submission, the Editor said, "Now we're going to have to shit or get of the pot."

It was published as a Letter To The Editor with the heart and guts edited out so that no reader would have a clear perspective or understanding of the issue. If you're interested, you can read the article in the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier and maybe comment on the images in the article. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits made by 66.97.114.48

FWIW, this is a dynamic IP that has been re-assigned, so the use who made the edits has a new address. --66.97.114.48 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Angela Pfaffenberger

I have nominated this article for deletion, as it has been re-created several times today. I saw where you created a redirect for the same article and tagged it as well. I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Please don't go around reverting people's edits to their own talk pages. It's idiotic; if I want to clear up my talk page that's my business. There's nothing to stop you looking at previous edits in history if you want to, but don't go restoring stuff I've chosen to clear out. Get a life. Add comments if you want to, don't restore other people's stuff that I've chosen to delete. Do I revert your deletions from your talk page? It's not like you haven't made any.JaneGrey (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sardonicone (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Don't hate because Scott Frabott was born with super-powers and you weren't. I'm just happy to be able to say I know him.

Summit Camp

Hi there, I created Summit Camp, only to find that an article by that name had been deleted less than a year ago. As you were active in the deletion process, was this about the same Summit Camp? This would be hard to imagine, since this only year-round permanently staffed research station on the Greenland Ice Sheet is extremely notable, IMHO.--Ratzer (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been Barnstar'd!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for being a REALLY good editor. Keep up the good work!!!! Gopal81ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Snibbetson Comedy Association

This article (Snibbetson Comedy Association) is of significance as the association has had interest by local venues in the East Riding of Yorkshire and has recieved enquiries as to it's origins and future. I believe it having a Wikipedia page would be truly beneficial to it's progress. It's deletion would be a move that could result in serious impairment of the growth of what may become a popular comedic company. I do not believe the article corresponds unquestionably to any of the criterion for speedy deletion. It would be a disservice to the company and truly unjust to delete this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksnowden1993 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my perhaps unnecessarily rash actions involving the deletion of your speedy deletion notices. However, I believe they were competely justfiyable as my only wish by publishing this information is to widen prospects for the future of this small enterprise. Sincerely Administratot for the SCA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksnowden1993 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Charley Casserly Entry

Hi Dawn:

I hope this is an appropriate way to contact you. If not, please accept my apology. I have made some contributions to the entry for Charley Casserly, the former General Manager of the Houston Texans. Another user keeps deleting my edits, even though my comments are supported by footnotes and are all factual. Just now, I received a warning from Jonathan321 (also known as Master of Puppets?) that if I made any more unsupported, defamatory comments toward a living person, I would be barred from making edits. I have sent him a message asking for an explanation, but thought I would contact you as well. As I said, my comments are all a matter of public record and supported by cites. I don't know why I received this warning. Can you please help?

Thanks very much.

Regards,

Carlos Escobar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosescobar (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Charley Casserly Entry

Hi:

HM211980 is continuing to make deletions to the Charley Casserly entry even though all of them are supported by facts and footnotes. This is also despite having received previous warnings against doing that. I suspect this person is a family member or friend of Casserly's. If Wikipedia is to be an unbiased source of facts, it is inappropriate for that person to be deleting information about Casserly. The record is very clear that his work with the Houston Texans was terrible. After four seasons under Casserly's supervision, the team finished 2-14, the worst record in the NFL. Moreover, the team had very few good players and had little room under the salary cap because Mr. Casserly did such a bad job of building the roster. Please see all the footnotes provided. I suggest that HM211980 be banned from making changes to that entry.

Respectfully,

Carlos Escobar

Leave My Talk Page Alone

Quit editing my talk page. You're the one engaging in vandalism. How can communicating with another editor on that editor's talk page be remotely considered vandalism? I simply made a comment on TopGearFreak's talk page about a comment he made on mine. That is not vandalism. If you were to consider continually editing/reverting someone's talk page in a way that is clearly not welcome vandalism, then I'd agree -- but that is precisely what you're doing to my talk page. Stop posting false vandalism warnings and leave my page alone.216.183.171.30 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The weird, vaguely threatening rant that you left on at least 3 user talk pages is vandalism, as TopGear explained on your talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I was simply reproducing a direct quote. If someone takes issue with a particular passage, it's only natural to quote that passage as part of any discussion about it. Quoting material is not vandalism. You, however, are clearly violating the no three revert rule with respect to my talk page.216.183.171.30 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When you copy a threatening quote onto people's user pages without attributing it or indicating at all that it is a quote, you might as well be threatening the user - they have no way of knowing what's going on inside your head. And reverting persistent vandalism is not a violation of the three revert rule. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an exact reproduction of the post I made that you considered vandalism:

Why did you post this on my talk page:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to User talk:Versus22. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. TopGearFreak 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)'

I did not attack a fellow editor. Versus22 reverted my edit to my own talk page. I simply informed him/her that I had the right to post this quotation:

"Where do you get off, you sick little twist? Sexual? I'm not sexual with them. I'm not abusive with them, how dare you write that in your paper without knowing nothing about me, biting's not sex, it's biting! I'm not sick like that. Maybe I should come bite you, would you like that, scotty? I bet you would like that, I am right? You write about me like I'm sick. You're the sick one, you know that? Is that why you like me, scotty? Is that why? I could come bite you; you tell me how sexual it is. You humiliate me like that? You mortify me like that in front of my father? My father's father? Listen to me, smack daddy, crack daddy, little baby whack daddy, here's what's happening. You ain't never going to find them anymore. You aint never gonna see them no more. I'm sending you something right now, You take a good look at this guy, because you ain't ver going to see him no more."

I[f] there's nothing wrong with my posting this on my talk page, then it's Versus22 violating policy, not me.216.183.171.30 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot plausibly maintain that this constitutes copying a "quote onto people's user pages without attributing it or indicating at all that it is a quote." I clearly provided the relevant context, used the word "quotation" itself, and put the quoted material in quote marks. It's plainly evident that I was asking a question about that particular quote. There was nothing "vaguely threatening" about it. It does not in any way constitute vandalism. Placing the quote on my own talk page is not vandalism either, so you are in fact violating the three revert rule by continuing to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I see you have reverted several unconstructive edits at Norval Morrisseau article. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

prodwatch

The Marquee Room Red House Arts Center

FreeNATS Modo Inc

AfD nomination of Lucie Lebaz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lucie Lebaz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Lebaz. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Valenti

Liked your comments on Jessica Valenti's deletion discussion! Excellent sources - I will try to use them to improve the article. RMJ (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Samhita Mukhopadhyay

Hi there! Thanks for your help in the discussion on Jessica Valenti's deletion. If you get a chance, I could use your perspective over at the current debate on Samhita Mukhopadhyay's article for deletion debate. Thanks!! RMJ (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from JBC3

Hello, Dawn Bard! As you are an editor who does a lot of vandalism reversion, I wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers. Good luck out there! --JBC3 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I saw you put back that speedy deletion tag on the Nexx Studio article, can you tell me what I should do, the guy who originally stuck it up there wont respond about so he shouldn't be sticking those tags there in the first place if he isn't willing to respond, but I fixed the article so it isn't compliant with CSD7 and more which means the tag should go right? ZStoler (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Message from putiton

Why did someone put the speedy deletion tag on my article about Deep Mindzz? I dont get what can i do to prevent this from occuring in any of my future articles. I just began on wikipedia today. The article is not greatly detailed because the boys B Quizzle and Infamous J are pretty private but i can still get the information. All that i must do is simply ask. Can the atricle not be deleted because I still dont exactly know what is so wrong about it. I see plenty of articles about things like a word that is made up and other needless things. Why is my article a canidate for speedy deletion? putiton (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I filed a relevant SPI request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr._Tariq_Nayfeh. At the moment there seems to be dispute over the puppet master. Verbal chat 11:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:149.68.105.207, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:149.68.105.207 is blocked for sockpuppetry/block evasion. I stand by my decision to restore that notice to their talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of WP:USER needs a slight modification. Gaming the system is still a problem if IP users are able to remove recent/current warnings. See Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Removal_of_comments, which I just started. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion and abortion

I'm quite likely going to get permanently banned in the near future, so I'd like to encourage you to follow through on fixing that article. Best of luck. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ælfheah of Canterbury

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your anti-vandalism efforts while poor Ælfheah of Canterbury was on the main page! May an obscure little Anglo-Saxon bishop and saint bless you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Threats to ban

Dawn, I really think you are overdoing it with these threats to ban people. I reverted edits on the article to address issue of libel, which is allowed in the Biographies of Living People. Please chill. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I am not gonna put it back in if you don't agree me to, But it is true that humans ARE created by GOD. That is the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by !1029qpwoalskzmxn (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with you, it's that that statement has no place in a science article, which is what Human evolution is. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrational fear

Do you still contest the definition of homophobia? If you don't, I am going to go ahead and change it to my version. Don't accuse me of creating an edit war, in that case. Also, do you feel that citing a source which only cites another source that has been already cited is not a violation of wikipedia's policy? (Like that online dictionary AOL source which only cites Merriam and gives the exact same definition as Merriam, which has already been cited) If you feel that the "proxy" source is redundant and a violation, at least allow me to remove an obvious mistake like that. 76.195.220.65 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my view is that the word "irrational" belongs, and it is sourced. And you are at the moment involved in an edit war - your changes have been reverted 4 times by 3 different editors. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you answer the second part of what I wrote? And also, please respond to my arguments in the discussion page to you.76.195.220.65 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at the article's talk page, since it will be easier to track it and other editors are involved. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of "on-line media" section form Connecticut page

I am writing to ask why the "On-line media" section was removed from the Connecticut page.

Every day, millions more Americans - and thousands more Connecticut residents - are making on-line sources (including news outlets, blogs, etc.) their primary news/info source.

It seems to me that listing traditional newspapers only (and most of those lists must be updated frequently, as these newspapers are shutting down at a rapid rate) is a bit backwards-looking (especially for the on-line Wikipedia!).

In fact, one of the sites listed in the deleted section, CTNewsJunkie, was profiled yesterday in Time Magazine (at: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1896808,00.html) with this description: "There are usually 11 reporters who make their home offices in the fourth-floor newsroom of the slightly Gothic marble and granite Connecticut State Capitol building in Hartford. Seven of them work for newspapers, two for radio, one for the AP and one of them, Christine Stuart, is the Connecticut News Junkie. On any given day at CTnewsjunkie.com, there are stories about Connecticut's budget woes, health care issues and Senator Chris Dodd's attempts to reform the credit card industry. Most of the stories are written by Stuart. All the photos are taken by Stuart. And Stuart or her husband, who works as a layout editor at a local paper, handle most of the ads, which are for local unions or the Connecticut Dairy Farmers Association. So far, her best month garnered her site 67,000 page views,"

And according to Wikipedia's own entry for "Online Journalism," the future of news and information is on-line:

"A research study conducted by Pew Research Center for The People & The Press offer a classification of newspaper readers and the movement of online readers. Around 46% of Americans are classified as Traditionalist. This means these people rely on traditional media sources like TV, newspaper and radio. Those in the Integrator category rely on traditional media as well as increasing internet news. This is around 23% of Americans. This is category is mostly of the baby boomer generation. The category that is now seeing an increase is the Net-Newsers. This is around 13% of Americans who rely mainly on the internet for their news. This category is mainly a younger generation like college graduates and who able to access the internet access easily whether it be a lap top, Blackberry or i-Phone. This is where the future of readers and newspapers are headed.[1]

Thank you for considering my questions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rslate (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rslate (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. I wasn't the one who removed those additions to the Connecticut page, but it looks like it was a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:EL. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

male abortion

Is there some particular reason you systematically revert back to a version that ONLY mentions one side of the criticism while presenting the information in such a way that it completely ignores other criticisms?

What you are doing is called "framing", by choosing to omit certain information and presenting an incomplete (biased) picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.11.251 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is adding unsourced, POV pushing, original research, and several editors, myself included, have reverted your edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Jason allen collins

Hi, just letting you know that I changed your speedy on this page from a7 to g10 as it was an attack. Try not to go to fast and thus miss these things. Thanks for your work in new page patrolling. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I understand, and I know that the author likely meant it in a disparaging way, but I'm not in love with the idea that simply writing that the (male) subject of the article has sex with men necessarily constitutes an "attack" - some men do have sex with men, and there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, I suspect that it wouldn't have been viewed as an attack if it had said that he has sex with women.

Does that make sense? I'm just being nitpicky about the semantics here, aren't I? I really have a habit of over-thinking things like this I should probably just use my judgement in these, and use g10 when it is reasonably clear that the author intended to attack. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but G10 can refer to negative unsourced statements, so (depending on your point of veiw (which, BTW, you're not allowed ;D)) that kind of thing can be classified as an attack. But you are right in that it is best to do it on a case-to-case basis, any not categorise every single "gay-statement" as an attack. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Facing History

Hi Dawn,

I am trying to add our resources on antisemitism from facinghistory.org to wikipedia. I'm getting blocked, and have been for the past few days when trying to add relevant content to enrich your site. You're claiming this is advertising, but we're an education nonprofit trying to provide free resources to those who might want to teach about various topics we cover on our website. This hasn't been a problem before, but it seems that now we've been flagged as an advertiser. Can you please advise on how to proceed? Thank you.

Facinghistory (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me jump in here. Irrespective of the purpose of your website, spamming is spamming, and when it's done by a user with a spamname it's doubly so. The warnings you have received are justified and your user name has been reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in - I was worried that I had been too aggressive with Facinghistory, and that I should have done more to assume good faith, given that the org in question is a non-profit. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't permit any greater leeway to spam when the subject of the promotion is a non-profit, charity, faith, or whatever. Spam is spam; advertising is advertising. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone! This is Rachel here, just myself, not representing my org anymore, just representing me. :) Mangojuice was super helpful in explaining what the rules are. I think writing something like "spam is spam; advertising is advertising" isn't really helpful. I totally get it now and have requested that my user: talk page be removed (my user page is already pulled thanks to the speedy blocking powers of the wikipedia patrol, it seems). In future, I'd like to ask that you try to provide the kind of information and tone that Mangojuice did. It probably would have taken about 5 seconds more and it was so much more pleasant and informative. I know you're all working at lightning speed, but it'd be so appreciated among those of us who are just generally unaware of the rules and aren't trying to break them. I promote wikipedia to my org as a great resource, one of the biggest reasons why being that it's got such an amazing community of contributors, editors and admins. I don't want to walk away from this experience feeling like they're great but they're kind of mean. Just my two cents. Thanks for reading. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remtheory (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop interfering with efforts to present NPOV

The information that you keep deleting in the Philip Markoff case is anything and everything that presents the view that he is innocent until proven guilty. You take the same approach in the Caylee Anthony article. While you may have already concluded that these defendants are guilty, others have not prejudged them and believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. If you are not an American perhaps you do not understand this. But many Americans take the view that defendants like Philip Markoff and Casey Anthony should not be convicted in the media before their trial. Please stop deleting everything that does not paint these people as guilty. The NPOV policy is to ALLOW different points of view to be presented in the article. Please read the NPOV policy and stop trying to interfere with that policy. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand "innocent until proven guilty" because I'm Canadian? Seriously? Anyway, you're misrepresenting my edits (and the edits of the many other users who have been reverting you.) Posting information that has been reported in reliable independent sources is not a violation of NPOV, and nobody has said that he is guilty. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday you deleted ALL of my edits that tried to make the article more neutral. The overall tone of the article is that this guy is guilty and that there is all this evidence against him. To provide an alternative view and more neutral tone, I added words to the effect that his lawyer said he is not guilty. This I inserted in a paragraph saying that police claim he engaged in a series of crimes, as listed. You deleted my edit. But that sentence was certainly appropriate under NPOV. You also deleted all of my edits saying that the sources of the information were anonymous leaks--not official statements. My words were also appropriate under NPOV. You also deleted my addition of the word "alleged" to "Craigslist Killer". The use of the word "alleged" is consistent with how the newspapers say it. What I was adding made the statement more accurate. There were other edits also that you deleted--all along the same lines. You just will NOT allow an alternative viewpoint in the article. That violates NPOV standards.

"Neutral point of view"

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

"The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides."

"Bias"

"Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed."

Theo789 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada!

I've spent some time in Canada the past couple years. I was a volunteer camp counselor at a camp in Nanaimo, on Vancouver island. It was beautiful. Aim for fairness 31 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

'physician' article

Thanks for all your vigilance & removal of vandalism; it seems a little strange to me why this article should attract it. I made a lot of edits last year, but lately only log on to wikipedia one or twice weekly.

I note you are interested in antropology and religion. There's some relationship with medicine; see the 'history of medicine' article.

Cheers. DavidB 05:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem - I had put Physician on my watchlist a while ago because of one particularly persistent vandal, but ended up keeping in on the list because, as you say, it seems to attract vandalsm for some reason. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Two-tier health care

Hi Perspectoff. Thanks for editing Two-tier health care; it really needed some work. I am concerned, though, for two reasons - first, that the article has no sources, and second, that the inclusion of a list of countries that don't have 2-tier doesn't really belong in this particular article. Can we discuss/seek consensus on the article's talk page? Thanks again, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am working on editing the article. I am a state consultant for healthcare reform and submitted a detailed healthcare reform plan to the Clinton campaign, as well as legislators in California (roundtable discussion occurring tomorrow). I only occasionally look at Wikipedia, and saw this terrible article referenced. If you have an interest or some expertise on healthcare, it would be great to see some of your edits! Perspectoff (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do have some interest - I work in healthcare policy in Canada, though on the business/fiscal side, as opposed to the medical/scientific side. I think it won't be hard for us to come up with some reliable sources for this article.Dawn Bard (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in White supremacy

Dear Dawn, I would value your input on the discussion regarding the word anachronistic in the White Supremacy talk page --155.198.108.162 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I am sorry, I meant to put that on your talk page.

You have made three reverts as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimidgy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 May 2009

Please see WP:3RR - to violate it, you have to have done MORE than 3 edits in 24 hours. You have done 5 reverts, and the consensus version of the page has been restored by 3 different editors (myself included). Thanks for your concern, but I am not the one in violation of 3RR. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Factory farming article

Hey, Dawn Bard - Sorry, I didn't realize that my revert changed the title of a reference - I would not have done that on purpose. I just reverted, then replaced the Purdue link, which was broken, with the EPA link. I should have reviewed the changes more carefully. Bob98133 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I probably shouldn't have been so bitchy in my edit summary; I realise that you weren't the one who originally changed the reference. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolution vandal

If you see someone replace an article with text from Genesis, don't bother warning him. Just report to AIV immediately, and say that it is the "Genesis vandal". That guy is a long-term vandal, so show no mercy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks - I keep this page on my watchlist because of frequent vandalism / POV pushing. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to semiprotect your userpage? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Although that particular vandal seems to have stopped. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert?

Why revert on racism? The previous text was partly proven wrong. The new had reference. This topic has been discussed too. You should not revert without poiting out errors. Filosofen (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus text had a reference, and is not "proven wrong" just because you say it is wrong. The topic has not been discussed - you left a long comment about it at Talk:Racism under the heading "Anti-White Propaganda definition" which nobody came forward to agree with. That's not a discussion. And I did explain my revert on the talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"which nobody came forward to agree with". And nobody proved was wrong. That is most important. And I got reference for it. Check if the current text is better. I've given reference and this is much better than the old crap which is totally nonsense attack on science and not racists.

Filosofen (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:Racism. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

trying to reach middle ground why else would I keep changing my own edits?

trying to reach middle ground why else would I keep changing my own edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borcat (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete sourced material, and please don't use another Wikipedia article as a source. At least 3 different Wikipedia editors have reverted your edits; you should consider seeking consensus on the talk page before making it again. Since you are now in violation of the three revert rule, you should revert your last edit. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Making Porn For Africa

Hello Dawn Bard, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Making Porn For Africa) under a different criteria, because the one you provided was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any queries, please let me know. Thanks again! Ale_Jrb^talk 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Sorry about that. I thought that speedy deleting for lack of notability was a good "catch-all" - if an article is a hoax or pure vandalism, it will also fail notability, right? Anyhow, I was so certain that "Making Porn For Africa" deserved a speedy delete that I didn't think too hard about the reason, but I will make sure to be more carefull in the future. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Saylorcompany/ Marc Dreier Page

This contributor just registered only to delete facts in the court record. It is a PR company from Los Angeles. He is a paid consultant. Facts are facts as is the Truth. If you are curious, go see what has been written on his talk page:

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

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 reference kaffer

Note several references to the article was included. This is however not a complete list yet and further research will add several more references. To delete information as vandalism as well as <talk> information as part of a discussion is seen as vandalism. If you delete sections again you can be reported a a repeat vandalism and be blocked to Wikipedia. Especially for subjects you are not an expert at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.1.88 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, deleting inaccurate accusations of vandalism from my own talk page is not vandalism. The article is a mess right now, and it would have been more appropriate to seek some consensus on the talk page before making such massive changes. I will check your references and initiate a talkpage discussion myself. You should consider reading Wikipedia's policies about assuming good faith and civility, and also note that it is considered good etiquette to sign your posts on talk pages; you do this by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your comments. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page while I was dealing with that guy. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I'm happy to help. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillifire

Hello,

You have speedy deleted my Chillifire post, and this is not promotion of software and I don't have anything with it. It's just extending list of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_portal#Software_Captive_Portals and that software is free and commercial...

Please consider to restore my post...

Thank You...

Mdzidic (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mdzidic. I didn't delete the article - I'm not an admin - but I did nominate it for speedy deletion because it read like an advertisement. It was even partly written in the first person. I suggest that you read the guidelines at Your First Article - there's lots of good information there about how to write a good article that conforms with Wikipedia's rules. Please feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Cheers Dawn Bard (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tres veces no

Hiya, I went with the {{db-author}} on this one, but you did add a redirect; I'll restore if you rather have the redirect than the deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I prefer the deletion - I didn't really think it was notable enough to warrant it's own entry, even as a redirect, but there is a precedent for redirecting songs to the albums, and I thought it would be less contorversial. Cheers, --Dawn Bard (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of Wikipedia

Adding cited criticisms of Wikipedia to the page designed for that, and citing Wikipedia itself IS a valid complaint, and a valid citation. I will thank you to stop undoing reverts which add additional complaints otherwise unmentioned in the article. If you have a problem with this, an admin will happily tell you about [| the 3 revert rule] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green021176 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 May 2009

See my replies to your comments at your talk page, and the article's talk page. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dale Rogers Training Center

Yo, Dawn Bard. EPresslerHenderson (talk · contribs), who has been editing the above linked article, has asked about addressing the notability concerns you raised concerning the topic. It would be great if you would share your thoughts on the matter, either on the editor's talkpage or that of the article. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DISRUPTIVE EDITTING

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Giacobinids, you will be blocked from editing. MULTIPLE REVERTS / DISRUPTIVE EDITTING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.164.211 (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Bard, I wouldn't pay much attention to this warning. The IP user has just been blocked for vandalism, and definitely did not assume good faith in communicating with you. I would have undone the edit just as you had. --JBC3 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I took a look at this person's other edits, and it's a bit hard to take their vandalism warnings too seriously, given their record. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fun Little Movies Notoriety

Thank you! You were incredibly helpful. How to I close the discussion so it isn't deleted?Thesupersfox (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Thesupersfox

No problem. You (or I for that matter) can't close the AFD, but don't panic - it will stay open for at least 7 days, and that is a good amount of time to improve the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay! What should I add/improve/fix next? Thesupersfox (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox

Last warning

This user likes to smoke his own pole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.151.109 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow!! What a super original, clever insult!! This user is actually a woman, though, so it kind of loses some of its punch, but I think you must be the most smartest vandal to ever hit this page!! Dawn Bard (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

COI notice

Hi Dawn. I posted a COI notice [3] regarding Wikimjb if you'd like to weigh in. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Djbarnes

um, what did I do?--Djbarnes (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained to you on your talk page, you added back a group of statements that had been struck from an AFD for being sockpuppets of yours, and you added a specious AFD tag to Soros Fund Management, all just after coming back from a 72 hour block for sockpuppetry. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding external links

Hello,

I work for a UK charity dealing with migraine sufferers (The Migraine Trust: www.migrainetrust.org) I tried to add a link to our website to the external links section of Wikipedia's migraine page but the link was not allowed. Can I put a link in the Organizations section?, other charities have entries.

Migrainetrust (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Per Wikipedia's guidelines on adding external links, "adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." If you really think that your site adds to the article, you can make a case on the talk page to seek consensus from other editors, but you have a pretty clear conflict of interest, so others might not believe that you are editing from a neutral point of view. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any further questions. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: External links

Hello,

Thanks for the quick response. I suppose I have a conflict of interest in so much as I work for the organization. We are, however, a charity and are only concerned with helping people cope with migraine. Other organizations, World Headache Alliance, Migraine Action, City of London Migraine Clinic, are listed on the migraine page. But I suppose rules is rules.

Migrainetrust (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello. Regarding this removal of an infobox. I don't know if that's the best solution. Of course, it's utterly ridiculous to have that infobox only (and if you want to have a good laugh, check out the original text submitted with it!). But there is a precedent for keeping infoboxes for all notable versions of songs. Pichpich (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think that Selena's cover is the most notable version - but I probably should have replaced the information with the original artist info instead of just deletion the whole box. Sorry about that. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't be sorry. I wasn't here to complain but to subtly suggest that you restore the infobox and write another one. :-) I guess you didn't take the bait! Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I did restore the infobox with the Jimmy Charles (original, top 5) version of the song. I don't suppose you have more information about this version? The box is looking a bit empty as it is, and there wasn't too much help at Jimmy Charles --Dawn Bard (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Red House Arts Center afd

Could you please indicate what manner of sources are necessary to remove the afd tag? I have some articles from the Syracuse Post Standard that talk about the red house's formation itself, but they are no longer online. Other than that, I have mostly mentions of the red house in reviews of the various events. A google search for "red house arts center" reveals two and a half pages of mentions of red house. a google search of "red house syracuse" (to differentiate it from other red houses) is even more fruitful. I will gladly cite the printed source for the article but would prefer to do so without the afd tag hanging over my head. Mykll42 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - you just have to delete the note from the top of the page, and explain your edit in the edit summary. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source?

I'd understand if it was some random person's twitter, but how can Eliza Dushku's twitter not be a reliable source on Eliza Dushku? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.193.224 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for an explanation of Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, from what I see, Dushku's twitter would be a self-published source. For biographical sources, it says "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material". Wouldn't Eliza Dushku's twitter qualify?

Feel free to add it back, you don't need my permission. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Rider (album) and notability

I hope that the notability of the album has been established, at least so much as to defer deletion until such time as I can tie in its significance to Harrison's career generally. It appears that it didn't sell that well, by virtue of not yet being subject to a CD re-release, from what I can see, but does form part of his overall work, which has merited Allmusic review and reference.

Please let me know if I am on/off track here.

Dreadarthur (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that it be deleted - I just tagged for notability, since there weren't any independent sources - you're doing good work to establish notability, you're definitely on track. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

still up for some tidying?

I noticed you did some cleanup and tidying over at the stub for Fun Little Movies. Well... I saw it at AfD and just spent a few hours working to improve it a little bit. Might you care to stop by and see if you could tidy any errors I may have overlooked? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Rescue (Kansas)

The term "pro-life" is propaganda. Who is "anti-life," besides pro-global-nuclear-war-ists? Even the homicidal and suicidal are not necessarily "anti-life," they simply want to end one or more individual lives. This debate is over "abortion," not "life." There are pro- and anti-abortion activists, but I can't even think of any genuine "anti-life" activists. Even those who advocate the eradication of Homo sapiens generally do so for what they perceive to be the betterment of other species. Again, "pro-life" is pure propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia except to reference its usage. When referencing the debates between those who call themselves "pro-life" and their opponents, an encyclopedia ought to avoid propaganda terms and use properly descriptive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a long-established consensus on Wikipedia to refer to the respective sides of the abortion debate by the names they use for themselves, namely pro-life and pro-choice. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what "consensus" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I can promise you that J.delanoy knows what consensus means. Really. Secondly, as I explained on your talk page, I reverted your edits because of Wikipedia's policy on self-identifying terms. The Operation Rescue (Kansas) page is not the appropriate venue to discuss whether or not you think the term "pro-life" is valid. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what "consensus" means, either. Also, I love how I'm already up against two editors in cahoots. That's 6 reverts to my 3! I lose! Yippee, WP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Physician

It seems that Dr. Tariq Nayfeh (talk · contribs) may be back at this article. Verbal chat 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I have written on the page "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panther Dog"

Please note that the reference and quotation that were disputed are bona vide, and that as an amateur but serious cynologist, I consider the former existence of such a breed of dog to be significant and thus to be worthy of a Wikipedia article. Collieuk (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Collieuk

Otter (the drinking game)

Hello mate!

Just wondered whether there was any way we could get this page approved? I went to uni about ten years ago with the guys who wrote this and we've been playing Otter ever since. It is actually a genuine (albeit a bit silly) game that was not made up in a day - we'd love to get it on Wikipedia if possible!

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.149.1.230 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dave - you need to provide reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Please feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Migraine

Recently your deleted two of my entries to the Migraine article, claiming they were "weasely". Can you please tell me in what way my contributions were "weasely".

Thanks, Jeffery A., Tacoma, WA, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.164.125 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeffery, I was using "weasely" to mean "weasel words", as defined by Wikipedia: "words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." The two sentences you added fit that description. They began with "Some patients, however, report..." and "Some migraine sufferers believe..." without providing any sources. Generally speaking, Wikipedia articles should avoid using phrases such as "some people say" or any variations of the sort without providing sources. I shouldn't have used the word "weasely" in the edit summary, though - it looks too much like a personal insult - so I apologize for that. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Bob Allen Bio

Dear Dawn, We were having trouble getting to you. We apologize for the multiple edit attempts. We were just trying to reach you on your first note of concern.

To the VERY OPPOSITE, We are trying to stop the VANDALIZATION of this poor gentleman. Many of your sources are loose, inaccurate, and liable in their presentations. We were attempting to add the correct info of Rep. Allen's service and correct the dates of service.

The legitimate court record will show that Rep. Allen's conviction and sentence was ADJUDICATED WITHHELD and he continues to pursue the legal appeal process for correction of the record.

We wanted to make sure that your organization has the correct service record and was not involved in someone or some groups propaganda of inaccurate reporting to harm the reputation of this individual.

Please inform of of the correct procedure you would require.

Thank you.

Legalfactsupdate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalfactsupdate (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for talking before deleting the information again. I reverted your edits because you were deleting sourced information without explanation. If you have an issue with the reliability of the sources, I would suggest that you bring the issue up on the article's talk page, because anyone who is interested in the article can then participate in the discussion. If you have reliable sources that back you up, that's even better. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How To?

Dear Dawn,

We noticed in some previous message exchanges that you refered to WP:RS for some guideline as to what are responsible sources, If we cite the Clerk of the Court record is that helpful.

We are trying to have the subjective off-the-wall or hate groups agenda not be the Wikipedia Record Source and knowingly continue to use such to the torturous interference and slander of Rep. Allen's name, reputation and ability to conduct business.

AND....Because we are obviously lacking experience in working your system can you tell us how to view your response.

Thank you.

LegalFactsUpdate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalfactsupdate (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Bard

Thank you for a reply. It appears that the only way to edit or update this incorrect info is to maintain a constatnt web vigil and hope to catch every viewer in a discussion format. This would require emense resources and is not a fair response to the damage that these early , incomplete and down right inaccurate reports are doing to Mr. Allens life. Is there a policy or procedure for a page rewrite, so that the truth and clear facts stand on and on the web page and not remain as a source of scurrilous debate.

Do You have a legal department contact.

Thank you.

Legalfactsupdate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalfactsupdate (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am working to improve the article - please see the talk page and join in the discussion. If you could find reliable, independent sources to back up your edits, that would be great.

Information about contacting Wikipedia can be found here. Please also familiarize yourself Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

a freindly letter

Hi, I'm Sis and bro! Hey I need some help in Wikipedia so could you write me back with some tips? I herd you are a very, very, very good editor in Wikipidia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sis and bro (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Meraloma Why

Why is the Meraloma Club being singled out at Wiki for deletion over thousands of other athletic clubs of less note? 174.1.20.172 (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not - there's no proposed deletion. The article needs better sources, and definitely needs a clean-up, but deletion isn't being considered. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Try going to Wikipedia and searching Meraloma Club It was removed.

So I created another Meraloma Club wiki pasted back in the page info and now it's gone again.

The reason was given as not notable enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.20.172 (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who deleted it, but plenty of reasons are given at the 2 AFD discussions that the article has had:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meraloma Club
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meraloma Club (2nd nomination)

Also, please check out Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. A subject must have significant coverage in relible, second party, independent sources to be considered notable enough to have its own article. Please feel free to ask if you still have questions. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Campden media

I'm trying to get to know this more. I want to create an article. What am I doing wrong? Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanassa (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand why you deleted my article? I'm new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanassa (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Just clarify, I didn't delete your article - I'm not an admin, so I can't do that, I just tagged it for speedy deletion. Secondly, I think the reasons for the repeated deletions are pretty well explained on your talk page, but to summarize, the page was written like an advertisement, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions when you get back from your block. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vinyl Candy Updates

I have been attempting to edit the pages that pertain to releases of Vinyl Candy. I accidentally removed errors using copy/paste methods of information. Thanks for understanding. I have tried to make sure there are references to allmusic in order to live up to the Wiki standards. Best Regards. Vinylcandy (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Page blanker

Thanks. Blocked for 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

North Korea

Fixman claims the sentence in question is not NPOV, and thus wants it deleted. We're discussing on the talkpage. Your opinion would be welcome. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is It Today, Lord?

Hi Dawn, I was surprised to find this article redirected so quickly. I created the article originally and I would have liked to have had the chance to justify its existence. Reading WP:MUSIC again I agree that it fails to satisfy the criteria of notability. I seem to remember that it was acceptable for articles on albums and songs to have a "parent/child" relationship to keep the album article readable and relatively short. I must admit however that I can't find that written anywhere now (must be my age!). I will however merge the text of this article into the article on the album (Grave New World). I will also do this for the other songs. Cheers Witchwooder (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)