User talk:DHeyward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please add comments to the bottom

Belle Knox AFD #2[edit]

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Proposed deletion of University of Minnesota Food Industry Center[edit]

As reviewing admin, I'm not sure how far the "educational institution" exemption from WP:CSD#A7 extends, but since you have raised it and speedies should not be controversial, I have replaced it with a PROD - formal notice below.

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article University of Minnesota Food Industry Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

individual schools and departments within a university are not generally considered notable unless there is substantial coverage in sources independent of the university itself - see, WP:UNIGUIDE, particularly the section "Faculties and academic colleges".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Maybe just self nominate and see how it goes. If you fail then try again in six months.--MONGO 21:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought about it. Also got a nominating admins review that he thought the ANI might go okay but that he shouldn't be the nominator. I might give that a shot. --DHeyward (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There are some tools or at least used to be that examined a contributors AFD votes and other things that would show your possible red flags. TParis or Dennis Brown or maybe Bishonen might know where those are. The talk page of every Rfa has details such as that but I don't know where the templates are at. I would nominate you but my last Rfa as well as my last two nominations were disasters and I doubt my nominating would benefit you at all. Many might vote against you just because of my nomination.--MONGO 00:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
(stalking) My advice would be this. Keep churning out content; not everyone agrees, but if you know how to write encyclopedia articles (especially to GA / FA status), it proves you are able to communicate facts effectively, which is a vital skill. Get a good co-nom (look how many people have recently said "Support, Dennis nom'ed him, what can go wrong?") who is prepared to cross-examine you effectively. Make sure you've got no skeletons in your closet, ideally you'll have no blocks and no justifiable templated warnings (that PROD from an admin just above this thread is an immediate red flag) and nobody can pull up a diff of you getting cross or upset. Finally, you need to have a good idea exactly what you want to do with the tools, and show strong evidence you've been working in that area - eg: if you want to close AfDs, you must have participated ideally in several hundred with your !vote matching the closing rationale around at least 85 - 90% of the time, and preferably with a bunch of non-admin closures that are within policy and unchallenged. Have a look at Dennis' RfA page and see if that's of any use. FWIW I am mulling over going for the mop myself, and there's some recent-ish discussion on Dennis' talk about my efforts, though I'm personally not in any rush as I've been moderating internet forums and BBS for about 20 years and seen all the grief and hassle you can get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note on temporary injunction[edit]

DHeyward, now that the case is open, proposed injunctions need to go on the workshop page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thx. fixed. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Re your comments[edit]

In answer to your comment that you haven't edited any GamerGate articles. You sure have. Christina Hoff Sommers is a GamerGate article. The BLP falls within the scope of the GG sanctions because Sommers is one of the most vocal GamerGate supporters. She is mentioned and quoted several times in the main GamerGate article. (You can also tell by the sudden influx of SPAs and GamerGate editors that CHS is a related page.) Just letting you know. I'm thinking about requesting sanctions so it's a good thing that User:ImprovingWiki, you and I have been officially notified of the GG community sanctions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you think are sanctionable under gamergate. Violating BLP by smearing Sommers with labels (apparently because you object to her gamergate stance?) are not going to win you points. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that we'll see who violated which policy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I requested enforcement here: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement#DHeyward. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The article in question[edit]

Obviously we don't see eye to eye on this overall topic, but I just want to ask, did you look at the college newspaper link in question? Specifically sentences 1 & 2 of paragraph 2, that's the kind of claims that we usually only see from one-and-done throwaway accounts. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem I saw was the sentences that said she had relationships with multiple journalists for positive reviews of DQ. That's obviously not going to be allowed in WP as every journalist named has denied it and there is no indication they reviewed DQ. WP editors claiming that it is "libelous", "illegal" and they are going to be "sued" is over the top. The source fails WP:RS's and that's pretty much all that needs to be said. It would never make it into the article. Legal threats/hyperbole in addition to threatening sanctions for providing a link on a talk page (not even repeating it) is quite the overreaction. --DHeyward (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It also claimed that Quinn was directly responsible for orchestrating the "hacking and destruction" of something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it seemed to be a rehash of the claims regarding The Fine Young Capitalists (I can't read exactly what it said but it's a pretty common accusation). It's still just an unreliable source. Linking to it for commentary does not justify topic ban or all the legal threats. BTW, TFYC is a victim as well from what I have read but no concrete link to Quinn except as competitors. --DHeyward (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I must be an old man because I have no clue why this gamergate issue even exists...some ex boyfriend did something and then I dunno...I don't get it...its all so disturbingly boring and of so little consequence. I would avoid it at all costs...its not even interesting. I can't figure it out. Even after two four packs of stout I don't get it. It would be really nice if some youngster could explain to this old man what this nonsense is all about in less than a paragraph.--MONGO 02:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm old too. The intrigue isn't the actual events that lead up to it. It's how how the pro/anti GG people have lined up along political lines. Here's a Vox piece by Ezra Klein [1]. The sides in the controversy haven't emerged because of the issues, which are a sideshow. Rather politics have defined the sides and political talking heads have used it as a jumping off point to score their political points that they want to make. --DHeyward (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm still confused! I even read the article you linked.--MONGO 02:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Mongo, Gamergate is about that electric ping-pong game they came out with a few years ago. The girls are mad 'cause the boys are hogging the game and not letting them play. The boys say the girls are ruining the game; other boys say it's already ruined and girly, 'cause it's fake ping pong on a tv. And all the boys and girls are like thirty years old and have graduate degrees in the humanities, and only have time for this because they can only get 25 hours a week at Starbucks, because of Obamacare. Tom Harrison Talk 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that makes more sense. Obamacare actually cured all the other ills in society and this is the last, great battle. Southpark will cover it all one day in the historical documents just as they cover every raging topic at WP and hopefully a music tribute. GG lives on because the relevance of everyone involved depends on it - otherwise they fade into the obscurity of a multi-billion dollar industry. Just saw a new article on GG today as a matter of fact. If only Kaypro were so saavy, the laptop market would have emerged a decade before it did and us early adopters would be hip instead of old.--DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah...Mr. Harrison to the rescue. Least I have him and DHeyward to make some sense of all this stuff for me. As a side note, Starbucks puts something in their coffee...I swear it...I think it's not just caffeine...well, wow. It must have some impact boosting device as cigarette manufacturers use. How else can you expect people to pay almost as much for one large cup of java as one would for a six pack of beer!!!???--MONGO 04:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

OR noticeboard[edit]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, DHeyward. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Who Stole Feminism?. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that your deletion of sourced content was reverted by two editors. You're essentially edit-warring against two editors. And please stop following me as you did when you followed me to the above mention article and the Rule of Thumb article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, DHeyward. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

I've dispatched an e-mail explaining precisely what is actionably libelous about the column. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would ignore Sonicyouth86 from here on. Unless of course if he persists in trying to get you sanctioned for having the he audacity for opposing his editing. In other words, further retorts at ANI regarding this will likely do little goodli and just play into his schemes.--MONGO 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's how I took NE Ent's comment as well and struck my SPI comments as more than one editor (NE Ent at ANI and another editor on the SPI page) took issue with it. Binsternet explains his relationship with Sonicyouth86 on the SPI talk page [2]. There's apparently a lot of wikiwars I am not familiar with including "Men's Rights movement" (didn't think it was a wiki-war). As I uncover the scorecard, it appears there is this big overarching thing that is the basis of "Mens Rights", gamergate, gender gap, feminism, radical feminism, wikipediocracy and Cultural Marxism (go have a look at that brewing disaster headed for arbcom with all the same players - it will have jumped the shark when TDA gets involved). I don't follow the noticeboards close enough to keep up with all the stuff and there is so much undertow I'm not aware of. Suffice to say, those disputes go back years so when I saw a problematic edit, it appears that the history of the other editors was long and gory (and headed for more of the same). --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You and I both know that those here advocating strong beliefs and opinions, even if they are right, have to meet the judges sooner or later. If he persist in trying to seek sanction against you for flimsy reasons then either an interaction ban or an Rfc may be in order.--MONGO 16:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Final Warning[edit]

Your latest comment at AN, now removed, violated policy in several ways. By linking to a place containing libelous claims, you violated WP:LIBEL "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" as well as WP:ELNO "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". By linking to an archive that violates copyright, you violated WP:ELNEVER "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." does not request permission to archive pages, and since the University scrubbed it there is reason to believe they did not want it published and archived. By editing another user's comment, you violated WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request" and WP:CIVIL for obvious reasons.

At this point, I'm not sure if you're unaware of these policies and guidelines, or just disrupting to prove a point, but it needs to stop. This is your one and only warning before I issue a sanction to prevent further disruption. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? My link says "file not found". Nothing I posted was libel and you can retract that accusation. Is there a two link dereference violation you've invented. I self-reverted the "citation needed" where he (and you) made unfounded claims about Amhersts retraction. That was my only change to his text. He removed my entire comment because I put CN on his claim. Please familiarize yourself with the diff function. If you think links within citations are also issues, you are venturing into ridiculousness. I am not aware that Amherst has copyrighted that material as it's not available at Amherst. In addition you are involved. You don't understand policy enough to be handing out sanctions. Don't post here again with nonsense. I will post it all at ArbCom anyway. Have a nice day. --DHeyward (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Notice that WP:ELNEVER explicitly says "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright", and you deliberately gave other users directions to find the material. The warning stands; do not link to that content again. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
And here is the Amherst retraction, indicating that it contained unsubstantiated, incorrect, and damaging claims and was retracted by the author and editorial board. Proof enough for you to stop your crusade? Also, I am not involved. As per WP:INVOLVED, "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."The WordsmithTalk to me 22:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
First retraction. That's a start. They don't claim it's defamatory or libelous or false only unsubstantiated and out of date, which I agree (but you went further than that, again without proof and defaming the article author without a source). The retraction also repeated the claim and didn't denounce it as false or list what they thought was false. Second, you just linked to an image that DD2K uploaded with claims he is the copyright holder. You know that is false and he holds no copyright to that image. You're kidding with wikilawyer warnings right? I don't mind any of the information you brought and don't plan on complaining about the image that repeats the claims you believe are defamatory. Nor will I complain about the image you linked to bearing a false copyright claim. because it's part of DISCUSSION which you seem to think only applies to you. Sorry if you think my example (which didn't link to the article and contained no statements) was a violation (It wasn't). Nor was my calling you and others out for accusing the author of committing a crime with no source. I will be providing evidence of your administrative violations to ArbCom. Yes, if you have any sense, you are "involved". --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right on one thing: The image is incorrectly listed as an own work, and lacks an acceptable license. After taking a few minutes to think on it, it appears to be a copyvio and I will speedily delete it as such. Provide whatever you like to Arbcom, I have participated only in an administrative capacity and, like WP:ARBCC, remain uninvolved. And I'm sorry if you think i'm being excessive (I am perhaps heavy-handed in contentious areas), but I also make every attempt to be fair. I specifically recall dismissing a previous sanction request made against you because there was no evidence of violations. I'm sure you're a reasonable person, and we can still collaborate to make this topic area productive instead of toxic. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I am reasonable and I hate sanctions (the only reason I took it to AN was because you seemed to not have responded on GG sanction). I am concerned about the "chilling effect". I don't know Avono and he could have been disruptive before that and a TBan for throwing gas on the fire might have been okay. But a link to illustrate a point that was not related to the narrative about Quinn (i.e. fringe coverage) is necessary for discussion. My own view is that the image that was uploaded for discussion is okay (it would get deleted as an orphan or remain unreferenced). That had the effect of letting me see the retraction which I could not do and is important for both it's existence and wording (no, the retraction is not a reliable source for how to reference quinn's relationships). I think the spirit and compromise of WP:BLPTALK is sometimes links and pictures are needed for discussion. All the false information about Quinn is 2 clicks from Wikipedia anyway. All our sources eventually lead back to claims we don't publish. We provide a source that says it's false but that source has a link to the claim that it's true. Had Avono posted that link with the intention of rewriting Quinn's relationship, that would be the kind of "chilling effect" we'd want to see. But his link was posted to counter that the news coverage was narrow. At AN I pointed out the difference in the names of the link to Amherst with the link to Daily Dot (which is a source in the article). If Avono was problematic, simply restating the TBan as disruptive would have passed my own test. But just a link on a talk page that was relevant to the discussion, though not as a source, shouldn't be chilling. Just as the image upload served a discussion purpose even if the copyright claim would never stand up in an article. The problem will get handled adminstratively without a sanction and the purpose of the encyclopedia is preserved. Everyone understands why it was uploaded and no one looks to punish the uploader. I'm sorry if I was short and snippy. That's not my intent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you or discussing this calmly. I actually hope it DOES have something of a chilling effect, since if you look at the GG talk page archives there is some appalling stuff there. There's even more horrible stuff discussed and linked to in the deleted/suppressed edits. I'm sure there's Oversighted stuff too that even I can't see. If editors have to think twice about what they post for fear of sanction, then maybe there will be less disruption, less frivolous enforcement requests (like the one you were subject to) and more productive conversation. There's a reason I've started participating in discussion of sources on the talkpage, giving a statement about what policy says about a source. I want people to know the policies and apply them on their own, and then the area will be much less contentious. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I think most of oversight and revdel involves claims made on WP of which were awful. I couldn't even see us repeating that retraction on WP as being extraordinarily weak. For links, oversight is limited to outing and personal information. I only know this because someone linked to an offsite message board that said stuff about me that was false that they used it to imply wrongdoing on WP. I requested oversight to remove the links that merely contain defamatory material and they are not oversighted by policy. It wasn't revdel'd because they explained that since it wasn't article space, and the attack wasn't direct, but through a link, the WP admins reviewing it would see it was an unreliable source and discount the accusation. They didn't want to upset the discussion unless the charges were on-wiki or doxxing. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Just so I am clear on my position here, and I also want to state that I understand your position too. It is my understanding that editors involved in the GG issues were told repeatedly to not post links that make a specific accusation concerning Quinn(we know which one/s), and other editors were sanctioned for posting the accusations and for posting the links on the article Talk page. Avono was well aware of this. But taking his explanation at face value and assuming good faith, he was asked to make sure it doesn't happen again and the TBan would be lifted. Avono refused and stated he was done with the whole GG issue. I would support a lifting of the TBan under the conditions set by the sanctioning admin, and I do understand that we can go too far getting sanctioned for posting links. But I think if we take our blinders off, this specific instance is one were we should be careful and not allow links that make the accusations as facts that we know are unsubstantiated. In any case, thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of SPA's making statements. I don't keep up with Gamergate article talk page except the recent case where NBSB asked me to take a specific issue with his arbcom statement to gamerGate talk as he believed it had at least some merit deserving discussion. The only background I have seen with Avono is what was presented at the sanction page. Previous history I don't think was presented. I presumed it was based on that one link. If there is disruptive history with Avono, I am not aware of it. i haven't searched for it either, though. --DHeyward (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Olive Branch of Peace[edit]

Thanks! My issue isn't even with you, rather the users that will cite that Tban for talk page links in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)