User talk:DHeyward

Say it isn't so

Please reconsider. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived

The recent Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration amendment request has been closed and archived at the direction of the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower/Gilmore

I think you may be wrong about Cyberpower's comment that you removed from the talk page of Darkness Shines. I've not followed all of the ins and outs but I thought Cyberpower said what they did on DS's page several hours before CWGilmore asked everyone to stop pinging etc? It's tricky because CWG has mass-cleared their own talk page on a couple of recent occasions but it looked to me as if they were actually referencing that ping when they may the comment. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I'm not sure about the timing or even if it matters. It's just not a good idea to summon the IBAN editor to a thread on his adversary's talk page. The thread was about one of them being unblocked, while the other is blocked which makes it worse. I was against DS's block and haven't looked at Gilmore's block but to me, summoning Gilmore to DS's page was a bit patronising and against all the advice to leave each other alone. I can't imagine that it helped the situation in any way and it's obvious Gilmore is upset about it. I would have been upset to be pinged that way. --DHeyward (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm is a ping a summons? The message specifically said do not respond there. That Gilmore subsequently became upset is just one of those things. I still think what you did was an over-reaction, as was CWG's flounce, but I'll leave that for Cyberpower to deal with now. The only reason I didn't post at CWG's talk was because I've never interacted with them and have no idea whether they have any redeeming qualities or not, whilst I do have some historic knowledge of DS. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Wayne LaPierre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Wikistalking me to revert my edit that removed unsourced material? Nice. There is no doubt where he stands on gun rights. He has very little coverage on other positions that would be needed to define "conservative." Abortion, taxes, military spending and policy, foreign policy, immigration, etc, etc. Find a source that attributes anything more than gun rights is really needed since he supports many politicians and citizens. He has both Republican and Democratic supporters. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Blue Lives Matter

Just so you're aware, based on the IP's now-suppressed absolutely disgusting talk page post, they're a block-evader targeting VM's edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't see that. There's no need for stuff like that. I think VM thought it was me making the article edits based on his article talk page comments but it's understandable that he would be frustrated if he was being harassed on his talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this?

What is this? Where does it say that in the source? Your edit has been removed. Does that idea come from some other source? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I presume you're appalled by the extraneous apostrophe? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It must be the apostrophe. I hate that. But yet yes, most sources had said both memos were released to the full House. Only the republican memo was released to Trump. What did you find odd? --DHeyward (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DHeyward and William M. Connolley, the sarcasm is unnecessary. I hadn't even noticed the apostrophe! I note that at the current time, the disputed wording hasn't been restored:

• "Both memo's were released to the full house with the Republican memo released along party lines while the Democrat memo was released with a unanimous vote."

On the face of it (from that source), that looked like fiction, and I figured there had to be a good explanation.

I just happened by that article at the time Volunteer Marek had deleted those words, with the edit summary "source doesn't actually say this". In fact, it showed that the GOP was preventing release of the Dem memo. That's why I came here to give you a chance to explain what was going on: "Does that idea come from some other source?" If it does, then you should be able to restore those words using a source which does say it.

On the face of it, it looked like fiction, but I couldn't believe you'd do that, so I AGF that there was likely another explanation. (Maybe neither VM nor myself were noticing it, even though it was in the source.) As it stood at the time, it appeared you either wrote fiction contrary to fact, or did some OR by adding something you knew from other sources, a much more innocent explanation. I assumed the latter. I'm not sure of the actual explanation, but you're welcome to fix that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to re-read what it says. Both memo's were released to the full House (not the Senate). Only the Nunes memo was sent to Trump. The votes to release to Trump were along party lines. The votes to release to the full House were unanimous for the Schiff memo, and party lines for the Nunes memo. None has been released publicly. Suffice to say, all members of the House have seen both memos. It is obvious that the Schiff memo required Republican votes to get relesed to the House. Only those with SCI clearance can see the raw intelligence supporting each of those memos. See WP:COMPETENCE if this is unclear as to how politics work. --DHeyward (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Good. Then maybe the content should be restored, with some tweaks. Here's a try:

• Both memos were released to the full house, with the Republican memo released along party lines, while the Democratic memo was released with a unanimous vote. Only the Republican memo was voted for public release, but Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) thought the "Democratic memo 'should be' released after House members have time to review it".

Forget that version. The problem is the confusion between release to the full house and release to the public. There is also nothing about a "unanimous vote" in that source, and the question of voting is regarding "public" release:

• "The GOP-led panel voted along party lines to release the secret document — which was written by Republicans — and against making public a competing memo Democrats had crafted,..."

So we've got two types of voting going on, and that needs to be made clear. This needs some work, and I have to leave right now. Maybe you can come up with a better version in the mean time, because your original intent should be honored by inclusion, just with some tweaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That too much speculation. Trumps review will determine whether either are released. If Trump says "no," don't think there will be a vote in the house. We didn't have have an articles until after the fact so whatever any single rep thinks will happen opens the door for 400+ opinions. --DHeyward (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

RSN

?? Not only did I not make any personal aspersion, but I can't even figure out anything I might have said that upset you. No upset intended. If this is important to you, let me know the problem and I will try to respond. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? I'm trying to understand why the media... was complicit in whatever deception you the Bush Administration and their co-conspirators may have been trying to perpetrate[1]. What deception did you think I was perpetrating? This wasn't difficult to spot as an aspersion. Did you really need help spotting it? --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi the word "think" somehow got dropped. Should read "'m trying to understand why the media... was complicit in whatever deception you think the Bush Administration and their co-conspirators may have been trying to perpetrate." And BTW, just about nobody liked the Act itself, so that's not at issue. SPECIFICO talk 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No Child Left Behind was passed with bipartisan support then replaced after criticism with Every Student Succeeds, another bipartisan law. Do you not see the names as propaganda? It would be very poor journalism to cheer-lead the government issued name without describing the underlying components. Our articles explain what the bills are and don't simply parrot what the government called it. An editorial decision to describe what it is doesn't imply that it's "unreliable" which is what the commenter was arguing. "Every Student Succeeds" isn't less propagandist because it was Obama Administration legislation versus Bush's "No Child Left Behind." --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's like the Environmental Protection Agency that truthfully should be called the "Bureaucracy Choking American Competitiveness". I think things need common-usage labels. You're right it's too bad the labels can be disingenuous, but like they say in Vegas, "he who makes the label rules the table." Anyway, my point was that it's not the media that makes the labels, and as an encyclopedia we really just reflect the common usage in RS citations. Otherwise, we would have the #nevertrump crowd refusing to call him POTUS. Or we'd have an article on the Puerto Rican Genocide after POTUS took the paper towels down to speed their disaster recovery. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 shutdown article

My feeling is that people are going to try to add material about the current funding gap to the article regardless of the ongoing discussion, and it's better to give them a separate section to do that rather than having them mixing it throughout the article, which will be harder to sort out later. I see this as a temporary measure until we know whether funding will be restored before work hours. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Under the article restrictions, adding anything about whatever is going on now requires consensus. Nothing should be added at all. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I respect that, that's why I asked. In any case, by the morning we'll have more information to help us decide how to cover this event. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian sock

Hi. Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that sock was you. He only repeated points you had just made, and he had no editing suggestions, so it was not a constructive post even if it hadn't been that sock. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What evidence did you have that it was a sock at all? --DHeyward (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Not wise to reveal methods and sources. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It's required unless we want to pursue a restriction on you labeling IP addresses as socks with no evidence. What evidence did you have to call that IP a sock? --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)