User talk:Dawn Bard/Archive 2

Thanks . ..
. . . for your reply to the URL user on the Islam talk page. Nicely done! Jo3sampl (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem - it just seemed like the a straightforward but polite way of dealing with an editor who was possibly looking to start an argument. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump
Hi Dawn-

Thank you for looking out for Ivanka's Wiki page.

Please be aware that I manage interactive content for Ivanka as well as the rest of The Trump Organization so the edits I am making come directly from her. I noticed you undid the changes made so please contact me if you have any questions as I do the re-edits accordingly.

Thanks!

Michael Martin Director of Interactive The Trump Organization 212-715-6785 mmartin@trumporg.com Mmartinnyc (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael,


 * The text you added was taken directly from Ms. Trump's site (http://www.trump.com/The_Next_Generation/Ivanka_Trump/Ivanka_Trump.asp). Wikipedia's aim is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and replacing articles with PR material conflicts with that goal. I suggest that you review the conflict of interest guidelines, and consider discussing your proposed changes on the article's talk page to seek consensus before editing the article itself.


 * Thanks!
 * Dawn Bard (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit in Bagittoday
Hi Bard I represent the company and the information in the page is incomplete so I provided factual information with appropriate citation. Please provide reason for edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhomiyar (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I explained my edit when I made it, in the edit summary, where I wrote "Revert two edits that had turned this page into an advertisement." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for advertising or promotion. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any further questions. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Human Leg
Evolution is an unproven theory. The article discussing "Human Leg" - specifically the anatomy section, includes an unproven theory as fact thus slanting the article towards an unproven atheistic assumption. Either the article should allow for the admission that this is an unproven theory (instead of the current presentation as fact) or the reference should be removed altogether as it is unhelpful in the article for those seeking information on the "Human Leg".

It is not vandalism to point out a slant or bias and attempt to have it removed from a page or at least admitted on the page. 174.25.221.126 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is unconstructive to repeatedly insert unscientific commentary into an anatomy article; the human leg article is hardly the place to be debating evolution. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that debating evolution on the page referencing the Human Leg is hardly the place! Why a disputed theory based in atheism is promoted on an unrelated site is the question. This is why I have removed the material from that particular site. To continue to have that information included on the site continues to present a biased and unhelpful remark when it comes to the human leg. In response to your idea that Evolution is a "fact" and "theory" at the same time, this is the subject of the discussion. It is seen as "begging the question" to begin with the assumption of your premise. Again, the unhelpful and unnecessary bias included on an article that should be describing the human leg is unfortunate. The concern that presents itself to me is the attempt to label someone with the desire to remove bias from the Wikipedia site as "vandalism" seems to be generally unhelpful. It is the point of discussion. To label an opposing side's viewpoint as "vandalism" is something that should not be done. The effort to label these comments as "vandalism" might be a form of intellectual vandalism itself. 174.25.221.126 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's not vandalism (and I'm not conceding that it isn't), it is at least unconstructive editing, and I wasn't the only person to revert your edits. Your edits added an unscientific bias to the article, and I was restoring it to the neutral version. Again, evolution is a fact and a theory; that isn't my idea, as you say, it is, in fact, scientific consensus. You are conflating the scientific use of the word "theory" with its vernacular use in order to attempt to discredit the science of evolution, and that doesn't belong in an anatomy article. It's not "begging the question" to believe the scientific consensus on evolution.


 * And you didn't remove mention of evolution from the article, as you imply above - you changed it so that it said that evolution is "unproven", which isn't true.


 * Also, if you want to improve the article, the best place to discuss your proposed changes is on the article's talk page, but the talk page is not a venue for debating evolution and neither is my talk page. I'm not going to engage in a debate about evolution here. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

what to do if you see outing
Thanks for catching the possible outing you posted about on ANI; what's generally recommended is to say nothing online and fill out the form at Requests_for_suppression. That way the information can be removed without as many people seeing it. I've filled out the form for this one, and just wanted to let you know for the next time you see an outing. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this - I thought it should be dealt with quickly, but I'll get it right next time. I'm just glad it's being handled. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il
Hello Dawn Bard. On the page:Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il. I was not trying to make it be redundant. Im trying to make it so that other reactions are made besides the one from the government. I also took that "unexpanded deletion" out because I was fixing my editing. I had not know u had already edited at the time I did that. I was also not trying to vandalize it in any way if you are wondering. I do my best to edit everything and anything in good faith and honesty. Also im sorry for misspelling your name, Nhajivandi (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello.
 * The information I removed was redundant at the time I removed it.


 * Also, I'm not sure it is well sourced. You keep adding back "As soon as the death was announced. an emergency meeting of the cabinet was held, and all members of the South Korean military were put on High Alert", but there is nothing in the CNN source about a Cabinet Meeting, let alone one being called "as soon as" Kim's death was announced. So I removed it, and kept in the correctly sourced information in the subsequent paragraph. You removed the correctly sourced information, and reinserted the sentence above, initially with the edit summary "The regular reaction of the south korean people must be said too", which has nothing to do with the edit I made. My edits were intended to make sure that the article stays well sourced, not redundant, and grammatically correct. Your edits have been to protect a badly-sourced, ungrammatical sentence.


 * Please note that my talk page is not the place to be talking about improving the article. I won't discuss the article any further here; if you want to discuss edits to improve the article, please do so at the article's talk page. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dmitry Borshch
Hello Dawn Bard,

Getty Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), ARTstor, AskART, Arcadja, Artprice, and Who's Who in American Art are not reliable secondary sources?

Artcyclopedia describes ULAN as "an authoritative reference whose editorial guidelines are plainly laid out and whose original sources are clearly cited ... for professional or academic work, it's a better source for key information than Artcyclopedia..." ARTstor, AskART, Arcadja, Artprice, and Who's Who in American Art are accepted by ULAN as reliable secondary sources. ARTstor, for example, is reliable enough to be used by educators, scholars, curators, librarians, and students at more than 1350 universities, community colleges, museums, libraries, and K-12 schools in 46 countries. 

If Dmitry Borshch is notable enough to be included in ULAN, ARTstor, AskART, Arcadja, Artprice, and Who's Who in American Art, it is not for Dawn Bard to challenge his notability. I have undone your "contribution". Please contact me before making further contributions to this page.

Khidekel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khidekel (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello.


 * Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. A few things:
 * i) As of this writing, you actually haven't undone my contribution to Dmitry Borshch.
 * ii) I tagged the article for notability because it does not make a claim of notability.
 * iii) I will not be contacting you or anyone else if I want to edit the page again. That's not how Wikipedia works. Nobody, not the article creator or anyone else, owns a Wikipedia article. Anything on the site is open to being edited by anybody. If you don't want others editing the piece, you shouldn't have put it on Wikipedia.
 * iv) Like the majority of people who edit Wikipedia, I'm just trying to improve the project. You might consider reviewing the guidelines on assuming good faith and refrain from attacking and belittling other users.


 * Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about Wikipedia.


 * Dawn Bard (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability is implicit in the creation of the article. If the subject is not notable, an article about this subject should not be created.

I requested that you contact me in order to prevent repeated undoings of contributions. It would be courteous of you to contact the article’s creator before you question that article’s validity.

I am an art researcher, with a PhD in art history from St. Petersburg State Academic Institute of Fine Arts, Sculpture, and Architecture. The above-mentioned “reliable secondary sources” are edited by art researchers like me. Please do not question their ability to judge notability of artists like Borshch.

Khidekel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khidekel (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again.


 * i) Notability is most definitely not implicit in the creation of the article. Anybody who creates a username is able to create an article, and dozens of articles about non-notable subjects are created (and subsequently deleted) daily.


 * ii) I haven't questioned the article's validity. I would appreciate it if you refrained from false accusations. Please remember to assume good faith whan dealing with fellow Wikipedians. I don't know if you are here looking for an argument, but I'm not going to engage in one.


 * iii) At any rate, I have not edited the article since I added the article improvement tags, which was before you posted your first message to me above. Adding article improvement tags to new articles is a fairly common practise here - it helps other users identify ways in which the article could be improved.


 * iv) Per Wikipedia's guidelines on article ownership, nobody needs to request the permission of an article's creator to edit said article.


 * Thank you for your contributions. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions about how Wikipedia works.


 * Thank you,
 * Dawn Bard (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

re : Norman Scarth
Dear Dawn, I refer to my editing of the Norman Scarth page. Please note that I did not intend to vandalise his page, but merely to summarise the contents so as not to give undue prominence to this person. Wikipedia presumably does not wish to provide a platform to convicted criminals and mentally ill persons unless there is a very good reason to do so. Apart from being involved in bizarre legal cases, Mr Scarth has not actually contributed much to society which is why I felt that he did not deserve such coverage in your site. He is now charged with another criminal offence, and is to appear at the Crown Court soon; this time he is accused of racial harassment.I hope you understand, best wishes, Lindsay Winn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaywinn (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've raised this article at WP:BLPN because of legal threats at OTRS. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch - I hadn't noticed the details of all the edits there, just that there had been an edit war. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

lawyerLocator.com
Thanks for reviewing LawyerLocator.com. It is a service of and operated by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell and referenced as such. It can be included under the Martindale-Hubbell page but LawyerLocator.com is a sub-brand and may warrant a wiki page. Any suggestions on how to best address this? The intent is not to be promotional as per Wikipedia guidelines are clear on that matter. Thank you for your help.--Laura Wallace 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Laura. (Apoloiges for the delay in my reply; I got distracted by my real life.) Thanks for reaching out to me here. First of all, all users are more than welcome to participate in the AFD discussion, so please go ahead and post your comments there, too - more people will see it there. Secondly, mentioning LawyerLocator in the main Martindale-Hubbell page is not as problematic, because we don't need to establish notability to the same standards as we would for a standalone article. Again, you are more than welcome to edit the LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell article. Please feel free to ask if you have further questions. Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dawn. Thx for your response. I understand about real life, no worries.  I will post the content for LawyerLocator.com under the LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell article. I will circle back to you if I have further questions once I get that content posted.  Thanks again. Regards!--Laura Wallace 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurawallace799 (talk • contribs)

R V Peacock
as I said above I accept your points.

No problems here with me on that front NotoriousQRG (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)NotoriousQRG

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is lots of errors in this article.It has same templates more than one time but that suppose to be one.Its better to protect this page due to chances of vandalism.Thank youRavishankar (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are dangerous
See - my comment was inadvertently removed. It probably was the machines' fault, but I thought it'd be good to drop you a line to tell you it happened. Have some stroopwafels. Deryck C. 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh! Apologies - I definitely did not do that on purpose; I'll pay closer attention in the future. Thanks for the goodies, and for being so nice about my little mistake. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and thanks for the page protection at Martin Luther King III‎! Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, we all make mistakes, sometimes big big mistakes. Deryck C. 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That board has always been terrible with edit conflicts. I've had times where users will add a section to the top, resulting in my comment ending up in the wrong section; I've deleted comments; and I've even managed to rewrite other editors' comments. However, at least you haven't made the same mistakes with the block tool that I have. :P (I've blocked myself, and this morning I managed to block the loopback IP while testing the MediaWiki API. Since the accidental self-block, the developers have added a big red notice to Special:Block if you attempt to block yourself.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Epic admin is epic. Reaper, I bow down to your seniority. Deryck C. 21:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Brain Fingerprinting inline references
Dear Dawn Bard:

First of all, thank you for undoing the vandalism to the brain fingerprinting article today.

As an expert in neuroscience, and a novice in Wikipedia editing procedures, I do have one point that I would like to clarify. You flagged this article for improper or inadequate format of citations, or for lack of citations. It now shows the following at the top of the article: "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2012)."

It appears to me, however, that virtually all of the sources are clearly referenced in the text, and virtually all of the major points of information are followed by inline references to verifiable sources. Most of them are formatted as follows: "Farwell & Donchin 1991" inline, and then in the reference section a corresponding "*  Farwell, L.A. and Donchin, E. (1991). “The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy ("Lie Detection") With Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Psychophysiology, 28:531-547.

It appears to me that this makes the sources entirely clear, and also has the advantage of allowing a writer to cite the same source multiple times in the article without redundancy in the reference section.

Am I missing something here? I would be grateful for some relevant education and/or clarification.

Regards, 24.19.3.26 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)