User talk:Dawn Bard/Archive 3

Siobhan Dillon interview
Hi, I am not sure how to send a 'normal' message to you so am using this. I really don't know why you have objected to a legitimate interview with Siobhan Dillon?

I have met Siobhan, interviewed her and chat with her frequently on Twitter. She knows me. The interview is a legitimate source for anyone wishing to know about Siobhan. We are currently waiting for a Q & A session with her for Ghost The Musical where she has recently take over the lead role.

Perhaps you could reconsider adding the interview?

Neil Cheesman Gemini2305 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi - I removed your links as spam because it's a commercial website that sells last minute tickets to shows in London. Please have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Interviews with Zoe Birkett and Siobhan Dillon
Hi,

Apologies as I have now found the correct place to send you a note.

I have to say that I am somewhat bemused as to why you don't wish to have two legitimate links to genuine interviews with two of London's West End cast. I wonder whether you have actually met either of them?

I have interviewed both Zoe Birkett and Siobhan Dillon and they are very appreciative of the interviews with them. I regularly keep in contact with them both as with other cast on Twitter and by email if not face to face.

The content of the interviews is very particularly about THEM as individuals, their careers and the shows they have been in. Surely that merits being of value to a Wikipedia article about them? These are facts that they have answered and have given permission to be published. NONE of our interviews are published unless we have the cast permission.

Yes our website sells tickets for London shows, but is that the reason why the interviews have not been published?

If so, may I respectfully draw your attention to the link to http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/news/latest/view/item117605/RESPECT%20La%20Diva

This is an article that barely mentions Zoe Birkett and the article is (or was) primarily in place to sell tickets for Respect La Diva

The fact that the website is called the "Officiallondontheatre" gives them no more authority on being a source of information about an actor, and they make a substantial profit of selling theatre tickets as you can see on their website.

I therefore don't understand why you allow one article that has virtually no content about an actor but will not allow an article that is 100% about that person and is 100% original material. I don't understand. Perhaps you might consider contacting either Zoe Birkett or Siobhan Dillon?

I should add that cast that we interview are pleased that we promote their interviews and one such actor has requested that the content be placed on Wikipedia - who 'controls' the content on their Wiki-page - do they?

Thank you for your time and I would ask that you might reconsider what is a genuine request to place information about actors that is both relevant and of interest to readers.

Neil neil@lastminutetheatretickets.com


 * Hi Neil, I have started a thread on External links/Noticeboard to bring the issue to a wider group of Wikipedians. Please feel free to join in the discussion there. I posted the text of your message there, to show your side of the story. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...(Pepper Chomsky, Author)
Hi Dawn...I am a wiki-newbie and am making some progress in understanding your culture. I know there have been several deletions of the Pepper Chomsky page. I want to clear up the problems. In 2004 Pepper worked with Lenny Bloom and Sherman Skolnick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Skolnick to co-produce the Canadian radio show named "Cloak & Dagger". As well, the book Among the Truthers - A fact from Among the Truthers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 June 2011 - covers Pepper and his work on the John Lennon murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Lennon. Pepper's book is titled "Code Code Peace" and first appeared in ebook form Dec. 31, 2011. Pepper has appeared as a radio guest in Canada and USA. Pages have been deleted: * 04:07, 29 January 2012 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Pepper Chomsky" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) * 05:38, 27 January 2012 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Pepper Chomsky" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: promotion) * 05:12, 27 January 2012 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Pepper Chomsky" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

See what you think:

""Pepper Chomsky"" is a Canadian Cryptographer and Author of the book “CODE CODE PEACE” [1]. He has conducted interviews with pop stars and rock journalists, people who knew John Lennon and lived with him.[2] In 1996, he deciphered a code in John Lennon’s song Mind Games that led to the theory behind John Lennon’s murder that links Lennon to the unexpected death of Alan Watts on November 16, 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Watts

Pepper Chomsky has also discovered a video image believed to be Mark David Chapman in Beirut, Lebanon. The video has been reviewed by Lois Gibson of Houston P.D. facial recognition expert noted in the Guiness World Book of Records, and Animetrics Inc. suppliers of facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies world-wide, including the US Defense Department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauncey_Marvin_Holt#Forensic_expert_Lois_Gibson

Jonathan Kay managing editor of the National Post and author of “Among the Truthers” has referred to him as “A Canadian conspiracy theorist who says he has spent 16 years writing a psychically-inspired book about the “mysterious” circumstances surrounding the death of John Lennon.” [3]

[1] Published on Amazon for Kindle, December 31, 2011 by Pepper Publishing. [2] Chomsky interviewed Ronnie Hawkins and Ritchie Yorke over a 2-year period [3] published on Jonathan Kay’s “Among the Truthers” page http://amongthetruthers.com/

````D Senater — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Senater (talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

so what was the problem?
hey there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I explained the problem in my edit summary - poorly sourced original research/original synthesis, just like your edits at Historical Jesus, Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles‎, etc., where other users reverted your changes for the same reasons. Please consider reading the policies on reliable sources and original research. If you would like to discuss the article further, please do it on the article's talk page - that way any interested user can see the discussion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't bother to read the articles then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, and the information you added to the article is not supported by the articles. Did you bother to read the Wikipedia policies? I will not discuss it further on my talk page; please use the article talk page if you want to discuss improving the article. Thank you, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Swimming in Champagne
Major label album with a Top 10 hit and chart appearance on four charts. And you think it's not notable. Say what?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gah. You're right, I don't know what I was thinking. It could stand to be sourced better, but notability is not an issue. (Though, to be fair, way back in December when I tagged it, there wasn't a claim of notability - that came later.) Anyhow, thanks for cleaning up after me on this one. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
Thanks so much; it was no trouble at all. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hormonal contraception mechanism of action
Dawn, I noticed you reverted my edit to the section on mechanism of action. According to the PDR and numerous other undisputed sources (including manufacturer inserts), there are 3 mechanisms of action. 1) preventing ovulation, 2) altering cervical mucus, 3) altering the endometrial lining. The exact wording varies slightly, but these 3 are the accepted MOA's.  Items 2) and 3) are not anymore theoretical that item 1) is. Another statement in the article that "Some groups that oppose abortion consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient" is a subjective statement that seems to cast doubt on the objectivity of a judgement that the MOA is abortifacient. What someone or some group believes about the ethics of induced abortion is irrelevant in any discussion on the MOA of a medication. If fact, one could just as easily argue that groups or individuals who oppose abortion would prefer to believe that the MOA is not abortifacient so that they would have one less thing to concern themselves with. I sincerely welcome your thoughts on these points as I too try to improve the factual objectivity of the article. Frankgyn (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is little point in making that case here, and there is little point making it without any reliable sources. I'm not the only one who has reversed your edits. I suggest you take this up on the article's talk page, where anyone who is interested in the topic will see it. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dmitry Borshch for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dmitry Borshch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dmitry Borshch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Articles for deletion/Brent Winters
FYI. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nation of Islam
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nation of Islam. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Entenstein Castle
Dear Dawn, thanks for marking my article on Entenstein Castle. I will add some sources to the article. Please redo the tagging on unsourced thereafter. I appreciate your copy editing. --[*W∞M*]  easy 09:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Coffee-Corner Phenomena
Hello Dawn Bard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Coffee-Corner Phenomena, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a real person, organization, company, group, or web content. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem - I actually wasn't the one to tag it originally, but I did restore the tag when an apparent vandal removed it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pulse Recording
I've read the comments you've posted on the Pulse Recording articles for deletion page, and respect your experience with these sorts of situations. As you can imagine, it's discouraging to spend time in a forum where it feels like wikipedia would rather not have a new article, than have one. Regarding the Pulse Recording article I hope you can explain your conclusion about the company perceiving to inherit its notability. How would you not reach this conclusion with every Record label, Music publisher, or any other business with an article on wikipedia which is associated in the entertainment industry? Additionally, how does a company like E1 Music Publishing pass your criterion for notability? This article was created with the understanding that similar companies like Downtown Music Publishing, and Water Music Publishing didn't seem to face ridicule or accusations of advertising or promotion. I am going to make another edit to the references you've questioned, in the hope that you'll reconsider your position (Jpoindex (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Hi. I haven't said anything that could be spun as "ridiculing" and I didn't accuse the article of being promotional. I just commented on an open AFD as all users are welcome to do; nothing I wrote there was personal or insulting or untrue. As I explained at the AFD, the fact that Pulse represents people who have worked for notable artists does not necessarily mean Pulse itself is notable, per WP:INHERIT, which states "parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." And these aren't "my" criteria, as you suggest; they are Wikipedia's. As to the other articles about music publishers, you are welcome to tag them for improvement, improve them yourself, nominate them for deletion, whatever, but none of them are relevant to the discussion of Pulse Recording.
 * Look, I'm just one commenter in an AFD, I can't delete the article myself, and no admin is going to delete it unless it closes with a clear case for deletion. It's not going to be deleted just because I say so. I made my case and I think I've explained myself well, but reasonable people can disagree. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Morgellons
Stop pushing misinformation on Morgellons to the public...the new study is out, released today, it is groundbreaking, I helped fund it, and the CDC is wrong, and they KNOW they are wrong, because they have a copy of the new study and now they are releasing they are in serious political trouble, because this new study, is the real deal....i changed only ONE area, to add a VALID peer reviewed publication, that proves that morgellons is not delusional parasitosis (watch CNN and other networks for continuing coverage..) This is a BREAKING news issue, the study is mind blowing, and you need to STOP deleting my edit, because my edit was accurate...knock it off.

Brian Watt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.170.86 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. If you have suggestions for how to improve the Morgellons article, please engage in the discussion on the Morgellons talk page; my talk page isn't a great place for that discussion, because others who are interested in the topic won't be looking for it here. If you helped fund the study in question, though, consider that you might have a conflict of interest and remember that Wikipedia requires that all content is neutral in its point of view. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Student essays
I'm strongly tempted to speedily userfy (without redirect) that and one or two of the other essays in that group, and relocate the ongoing deletion discussion to MFD. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons
...that I rarely edit Wikipedia any more. You proposed deletion as "non-notable" an article I wrote years ago, Mangos (song). The rules state that any multiply-covered song is notable per se. (See Notability_(music)) They also state that a song that charted is notable, and while the version of the article did not mention it, so I have updated the article, you're talking about a song that reached #10 on one Billboard chart and #25 on another! -- BRG (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was unsourced for 4 years, I proposed it for deletion, you improved it and removed the PROD tag. That's how PRODs often work. I'm baffled as to why you are blaming me for the fact that you rarely edit Wikipedia anymore. The article isn't being deleted now, PROD commonly used and my proposing the article for deletion wasn't a personal insult or an attack, and I don't think we've ever crossed paths before; I'm at a loss. Hope this is a satisfactory reply. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming you, singly, for the fact that I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore. I am blaming editors who propose things for deletion instead of being constructive. If I had my way, and I realize I don't, nothing would ever be proposed for deletion just because it was unsourced -- BTW, when I first wrote the article, nothing was sourced because there was no such a thing as a tag! -- and there would be a strong presumption of notability (i. e. you'd have to prove something was not notable before you could propose deletion, not prove that it was notable to keep it). I have never proposed anything for deletion, and never will -- unless it is total spam. You say that your proposing the article for deletion was not a personal attack; I never said it was. What I think is that using your time to propose articles which contain perfectly useful information rather than to add information is a waste of your time and of mine. -- BRG (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Your frustration is understandable, I haven't been editing Wikipedia for as long as you, so I don't know what it was like back then. I'm sorry if I wasted your time, but I have used some of my time to make a lot of constructive edits to Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think verifiability is actually a more important reason to require reliable sources than notability; requiring that assertions be verified helps prevent lies/hoaxes/speculation, etc., being presented as facts. (To be clear here, I'm definitely not calling Mangos (song) a lie/hoax/whatever - that would be absurd of me, I never thought it wasn't true - I'm generalizing a bit in defence of the current WP requirement for reliable sources.) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Urgent Notice!
Read the Talk Page of Occupy Wall Street. Immediately. American Patriot J (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

BodyGuardz
I have removed the Notability tag you added to this article in March 2012. (I have left the Advert tag.) My reasoning is explained at Talk:BodyGuardz. If you wish to respond, please do so here or over there. HairyWombat 05:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Decade of Darkness
This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. - Ahunt (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Delicacy of Living Modestly
Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2008. The tag's still there; you may want to take it to AfD or the Notability Noticeboard to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The same for Shelter Cymru. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)