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)

OR noticeboard[edit]

UTRS Account Request[edit]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. DHeyward (talk)

Welcome to Milhist![edit]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin D. Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purple Hearts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixing V Devices for USN Members[edit]

You may have noticed earlier that I fixed the V device placements for Kyle's BSM and NAM; you can conveniently and quickly get the markup coding for those placements from the text in the V Device article inside the examples sections for USA/USAF and USN/USMC members accordingly. Just thought I'd point that out FYSA if you ever need it in the future... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: Thanks, I saw the code. How stars and devices are placed is a knowledge gap more than a programming gap. I saw the template and contemplated creating an overload function but that would be risky and it's a well used template. I like the ribbon template but they are also difficult to verify especially non-valor devices. e.g. I can only find one Silver Star citation for Kyle but it's widely reported he has 2 SS and 5 BS with V. Purple heart is also difficult to verify the multiple awards. I have to look up things like whether it's a cluster or a star and how the devices would be arranged. --DHeyward (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Roger that, I can appreciate how tricky it gets. I'm no expert but I have 28+ yrs split between USA/USAR service, and may be able to contribute an opinion from time to time if need be when you're trying to figure out a device arrangement. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@AzureCitizen: Excellent. Then please have a look at Franklin D. Miller. I compiled his a few days ago. Valor stuff is easy to find. Presidential unit citations and others are difficult. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The ribbons appear to be in order, nothing out of place, etc. I did switch from the gold colored USN "Combat V" to the bronze colored USA "V Device" for the BSM, and also changed the NDSM and VSM medals to use 3/16" service stars instead of Navy 5/16" award stars. With regard to unit citations, they don't show up on the ribbon rack for Army members (worn instead above opposite jacket pocket), while Navy members wear them inside the rack with their other awards. If you're still trying to find sources for medals themselves, I'll probably not as useful there; my expertise is picking out when a device isn't arranged correctly or something is "off", etc. Let me know if there is some other specific question I can answer. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

Your comment on Jimbo's page about Gamergate, the ArbCom, and the problems with articles on current controversies was very useful.

Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Since David A did not bother to inform you, I'm letting you know he mentioned you at AN/I [1]--MONGO 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to inform him. But I can't do everything at once. David A (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas is not worth responding to not feed him as his sole purpose is to aggravate not alleviate.--MONGO 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC) should have reminded me to listen to my own advice. What a pest...--MONGO 06:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that even though I have not levelled a single personal attack (like calling someone an asshole which is a personal attack) he may have had more luck in his endeavour to see me blocked or banned by stating dispassionately and without ad nauseam repetition the reasons why I am so allegedly a menace to that article's improvement. Golly gee these people end up defeating themselves... its so clumsy.--MONGO 07:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls!--MONGO 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Please do not edit the comments other make as you did here. --John (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad! Naughty DHeyward!--MONGO 07:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at edits by that account...DHeyward just gave him a page no different than posting on the talkpage of the troll.--MONGO 13:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a BLP violation to write that a living person has created Nazi or KKK propaganda films. I'll redact BLP violations when I see them. --DHeyward (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have started a Dispute Resolution discussion for American Sniper[edit]

Please see here David A (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you find the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's statement dubious, it has been reported by a variety of news outlets. It would be appropriate to report and attribute the statement per WP:SUBSTANTIATE and per WP:DUE, based on the coverage. WP:DUE says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Erik:The other news outlets such as Huff Post link to the bloggish reports to substantiate their claims. So not sure if its that news worthy. If someone is assaulted or attacked like the few incidents against Muslims or those some thought were Muslims after the 9/11 attacks then it's worth reporting. My impression is that what goes on in the blogosphere is pretty much not noteworthy. But this is a content discussion so best off on the article talk page.--MONGO 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am seeing the statement reported by BBC News, The Guardian, Detroit Free Press, and Reuters. This viewpoint is prevalent in reliable sources. I really do not see a case to exclude the statement entirely. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So if its in the news, it's worth reporting? Any actual instances of hate crimes though? I see none right?--MONGO 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the statement is worth reporting because per policy, it has been prevalent in reliable sources. If there is a response to the statement also prevalent in reliable sources, that can be included too. The sources I mentioned highlight the Committee saying there have been "violent threats" on social media, not any actual crimes taking place. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
No reliable source have said there have been "violent threats" on social media. Companies have press releases all the time. They are republished by reliable sources. That does not mean that reliable sources have repeated the claims in a press release. Go read a stock ticker symbol when they issue press releases. It's a self published source that is repeated, not a claim being made by reliable sources. --DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not about whether or not the specific claims are true. It is about reliable sources reporting on the statement, thus rendering this viewpoint of concern prevalent, and thus appropriate to include per WP:DUE. If it was a press release that went unreported or minimally reported, then the press release's viewpoint does not warrant attention for coverage. Responses to the statement, also reported by reliable sources, are also appropriate. In the draft, for example, I mentioned that conservative news outlets criticized the concern and that Breitbart considered the claim a hoax. It is that kind of reporting that is appropriate per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee may be a notable organization. In terms of it's coverage in an article about a movie, is simply an UNDUE weight issue as ADC isn't any different than any other non-film critic. Put it in the ADC article if its notable. Without anything specifically attached to the movie, its not relevant. Note that every reliable source talks about ADC statements, not the film or anything attributed to the film - e.g. there are no threats that were documented separately being covered by reliable sources. We cannot in WP's voice or any RSs voice state that threats have increased. It's only a press release from a political organization. If we start including all press releases, we will have a gigantic article. These so-called threats, without any documentation, don't belong as a criticism. I'd also note that this organization cited the ground zero mosque as the pinnacle of threats. That group is not mentioned in that article nor are any threats mentioned in that article. Also the ground zero mosque isn't in the ADC article. If it's not notable in those cases, its extremely difficult to make the case that it's notable in an article about a movie. They have their views, they are just no notable enough to create controversy. The Charlie Hebdo attacks and ISIL beheadings created a lot more threats and this group is still not notable enough to cite their opinion, though I doubt they would issue a press release complaining about the increase in threats after the terrorist incidents (whence why they are not a reliable source for complaints in general). --DHeyward (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It is definitely not undue weight. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." If it was a press release that did not get reported anywhere, I would agree with you that it would not warrant inclusion. However, the material has been reported in multiple reliable sources, so there is due weight to include it. Please see the draft page in development on the talk page. I've included the high-level assessments that touch on the committee's statement and the related responses. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Lot's of fringe viewpoints get RS coverage. We don't need to cover all of them. If we weigh the relative coverage of positive and negative, we would need a thousand pages of positive reviews to the one press release by ADC. It's not notable enough or have enough weight to carry in the American Sniper film article just as it was enough weight to include it in the ground zero mosque article. You are giving them way to much credit as the RS covered the press release but did not endorse or validate its content. You want to include the content which was not backed by reliable sources at all. ADC is a notable organization but they are not a reliable source. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:DUE states that a viewpoint's prevalence is based on reliable sources. If sources like The Guardian and The Washington Post report about the statement and related details, that means it has prevalence worth covering, even in passing. Is there an aspect of WP:NPOV that warrants excluding anything about the statement and related details? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
BS. Press releases get re-published all the time by notable organizations. The key is that the content is not widely covered. They summarized what ADC said with no fact checking or corroboration. Go read the press release that follows every notable companies earnings release. It's presented without comment. After that is when reliable sources analyze and report what is true and what is BS in the voice of the reliable source. Or they don't report anything else if its just fluff. Either way, a press release is only valid as source for the company that releases it. Even if AP carries the release, it's not attributable to AP, just as none of the ADC claims are attributable to a reliable source. Here's an example of a press release[2]. Does it matter how many sources carry it? The reliable sources make no claims about it whatsoever. NPOV isn't the issue as there is legitimate criticism, just not "threats against arabs" coming from the film. That's a WP:FRINGE theory that is swamped by other coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two ways press releases are reported. One way is the Yahoo! Finance link you provided. That is essentially a re-published press release. However, the coverage here is about the press release. The reliable sources are quoting from it but also put it in context. For example, The Washington Post, in covering the statement, also reported that other news outlets reported instances of hate speech. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources that are reliable and independent. The sources in question here are contextualizing the statement, which is appropriate per WP:ANALYSIS. As for your referencing of WP:FRINGE, it says, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." Like I have said, the statement is prominent because it has been reported and contextualized by reliable sources. Again, WP:DUE says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:SOURCE says mainstream publications are appropriate reliable sources to determine a viewpoint's prevalence, regardless of our own personal analysis of it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It got coverage in the "Style Blog" of the Washington Post. In terms of proportion to their prominence, they might get a letter. Not a word or paragraph. The fil as a source of anti-arab violence has virtually no prominence in the reliable sources. Zippo. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Its not like the movie Taxi Driver which supposedly inspired Hinckley to shoot Reagan so he could impress Jodie Foster. Even that, the attempted assassination of a U.S. President (!) gets but two sentences! These "threats" are just stupid blogosphere comments.--MONGO 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It was also a one day wonder. No follow-up. Two weeks after charlie Hebdo they say a spike in threats is due to a movie? No press outlet explored this. The dutifully reported the press release and then it died. Today, ADC released a statement about a shooting in NC which it blamed on coverage of Charlie Hebdo and American Sniper. The police blame it on a neighbor dispute over parking. ADC is all fringe conspiracy nonsense that got a press release covered in one newscycle with no followup. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post and The Guardian are just two of numerous reliable sources that are reporting on the statement and responses to the statement. I don't think it is necessary to reference all of them, but this should not mean that there are just two sources in news reporting that covered the statement. Also, the studio releasing its own statement condemning such rhetoric did not happen in a vacuum. In any case, I will continue developing the draft and solicit feedback from uninvolved editors. Please share any comments on the related thread on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
In other words, our opinions don't matter and you will do whatever you want.--MONGO 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
What responses? Nobody responded to them. Their press release was read. It went away without a response or violence. Joe Arpaio stated that Obama's BC was forged. That press release got lots of reading over one day. Doesn't mean we report a forgery in the Obama article. It's overwhelmed by coverage actually about Obama, not made up stuff, and doesn't deserve mention. This is no different. Nobody has established this as a noteworthy controversy. Certainly the one day press coverage ocer their press release with no follow-up does not support it. There's no "there" there. --DHeyward (talk) 03
44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


You may be interested in this discussion regarding WP:BLPTALK —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM Clarification Request Party Notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Downplaying Islamophobia[edit]

Edits such as this appear from my perspective to be an attempt to downplay, discredit or underestimate the existence of Islamophobia. (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived[edit]

Hi DHeyward, I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request that you are listed as a party to to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Just a reminder. I have edited your post because I had recently discovered that he got blocked. Thus it had to be 24.[3] Thank you. Delibzr (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving posts[edit]

Please do not move my comments on another editor's talk page as you did here. Dreadstar 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: No, I didn't move your post. Here's your post.[4]. MarkBernstein removed it.[5]. I restored with a ping to the two admins that he had an agreement with not to do that sort of thing as he deleted it rather quickly. [6]. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. ". More detail is provided here. Where did he agree not to remove comments/warnings? Dreadstar 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been here 10 years. I am aware he can remove them. My intent was only to notify the two admins, in context, the warning you gave. I didn't just restore the warning, it was also a comment. I didn't care that he removed the warning, only that he has made agreements for his conduct with those two admins. He is/was free to remove my comment as well. --DHeyward (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Elevated cannon rights![edit]

Until you get elevated rights, you can borrow my second car (that comes in handy when dealing with heavy traffic) anytime.--MONGO 14:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody listens and some that claim to be "first on the button" seem to have both fingers in their ears. Maybe a few rounds will wake them up. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)