User talk:DHeyward

• /Archive 1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive 2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive 3 Created September 30, 2006
• /Archive 4 Created November 19, 2006
• /Archive 5 Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 10 Created --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• /Archive 11 created --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 12 created --DHeyward (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 13
• /Archive 14

Monday

6

May

08:40 UTC

Please add comments to the bottom

Belle Knox AFD #2

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)

A cup of coffee for you!

Sorry that I misunderstood your comments on the workshop page. PhilKnight (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Instrument of Degradation

The article Instrument of Degradation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article creator removed db-nocontent tag in violation of WP:CSD instead of contesting deletion. Minimal information remains in this article, and the only article linked here is Order of the Garter. WP:NOT#DICT

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. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Flying droplets

Hi, just dropped back to have a look at the Siphon article. There has been some material (and a video) put in about the 'flying droplet siphon'. The intent is to apparently refute cohesion or tension and subtly re-introduce air pressure. However, I am not concerned about that issue. I have never seen a flying droplet siphon before and my question to you is, basically, is this a siphon?

I think it is being called a siphon inasmuch as a liquid is being moved from one level to another, but I see it as a pump. Just as what is called 'siphon coffee' is a pump because expansion of air under heat pushes liquid up the tube, I see a negative, or partial pressure, pump operation in the droplet siphon. From the decription it seems that when the lower column of fluid is released, it drops under gravity causing a reduced pressure in the sealed chamber above. This reduced pressure, in turn, sucks the fluid from the source container (see Figure 5 in the siphon article) like liquid through a straw. Am I right?

The droplets merely occur because the source tube tapers to a point so the liquid forms droplets at the partial pressure it is emerging from, reduce the pressure and it would hose out as a stream. Remove the taper and just have a circular pipe ending and the fluid would probably just pour out.

I'm not sure that having the flying droplet siphon is strictly a 'siphon' or that it adds to the explanation of siphon operation (in my mind gravity and in-siphon pressure effects (Bern. and Pous. equations)), in fact it may detract from clarity.

I would be happy to read your thoughts on this. Cheers, T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermory Womble (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

gg

Why did you restore it when it was already restored on the workshop page?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I only saw your deletion on the talk page. Apologies if it was restored by another party. The OP only had the single contribution which was inexplicably removed from a talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Instrument of Degradation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Instrument of Degradation. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Order of the Garter#Degradation of members. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Order of the Garter#Degradation of members – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Instrument of Degradation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Instrument of Degradation 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instrument of Degradation 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 notice from the top of the article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year DHeyward!

Happy New Year!

DHeyward,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Avono (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks man

It's unrewarding stopping editors who go whitewash people pages and books because of ideological reasons. Know there is a person who appreciates and understands how tiring it is to deal with certain editors. So thanks for doing what you do and continue being awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.202.62 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for your help

Dear DHeyward, - I've been the principal creator and maintainer of the Mark Satin article , and I very much appreciate that you removed "Michael W. Parker"'s fourth (!) recent attempt to characterize the subject of that article as a coward.

Unfortunately, he is at it yet again, and I do not know how to stop this. You will see from the Satin Revision History page that several Wikipedia editors (including me) have reverted his material, but he keeps on plugging away.

Today he restored the "coward" tag, threatened an "edit war," and referenced "sources" mentioned by Satin. That is misleading. Parker's citation is to Satin's website, where Satin states that several unnamed e-mailers have called him a "coward or worse" (since putting his website up in approx. 2000). Thus Parker's "sources." Surely that does not merit mention in an encyclopedia.

I have read all the book excerpts and articles referencing Satin in the Satin article - nearly all of which are available in the "Mark Satin Papers" at the universities of Michigan and Toronto - and I can testify that no reputable source calls him a "coward," though of course several sources disapprove or record disapproval of his decision to emigrate to Canada. The article as it stands already records that disapproval, including (most poignantly) from his own parents. There is no need to rehash that material in the "Assessments" section.

Do you have the power to stop Mr. Parker from continuing to attempt to degrade the Satin article? Alternately, can you tell me where I should turn? I will watch on this site for your reply. Thanks so much for any help you can provide. - Babel41 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Babel41: You can make a report at the BLP Noticeboard WP:BLPN for the article. You can also report an editor at Noticeboard/Incidents WP:ANI. I don't have any more power than you. --DHeyward (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. - Babel41 (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

One other, I requested page protection increase WP:RFPP to "pending changes" which means the edit has to be accepted. --07:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I only want the truth in the article. With all due respect to the author of the Satin article, a person who I am sure is an ardent advocate of Satin, I still insist that Satin's own admission that he has been called a coward should be a part of this article. Also, I do not see any relevant link between Satin and Benjamin Franklin. That to me is a ridiculous correlation. I have removed Ben's photo which has no business being in this article. To connect Benjamin Franklin to Satin's philosophy is absolutely preposterous.--Michael W. Parker (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And you seem to be an ardent anti-advocate, Michael W. Parker. Wikipedia isn't for expressing either attitude, it's supposed to be neutral. I have warned you on your page about edit warring. Babel41, a tip for the future: posting such a warning is useful in these cases, and that is something you can do yourself. You can use a template for the purpose: if you type {{uw-ew}}, it expands to a notice like the one I've posted on Michael W. Parker's page. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC).

IP trolls

As the website has fewer and fewer guardians against the random IP trolls and useless POV pushers one wonders how long it will be before it all collapses upon itself.--MONGO 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many more editors would free up if the parade members of ANI and ARBCOM were given a break. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly...but the drama boards are the website...the IP clowns are either there or tearing up articles and the talkpages by trying to twist things to conform with their perverted world.--MONGO 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopping IPs makes it much more attractive to edit anonymously. No history and no enforceable blocks. I wish they would make all IP edits subject to "Pending Changes". It used to be that creating an account was more anonymous. Now creating an account is less anonymous than IP edits. Serious editors would create accounts and vandals wouldn't be rewarded with instant gratification. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea and believe that that sort of thing is likely inevitable if the few are to be expected to keep the POV pushers at bay.--MONGO 13:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Contested hatting

As you reverted my recent hatting of one of Thargor Orlando's disruptive comments and you didn't take it to Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement, I've done so myself. --TS 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gawker as source, wrong link?

The link you added to Talk:Gamergate controversy seems to be about one Shanley Kane. Did you use the wrong link? I see no obvious connection to Gamergate, or even to Milo (unless he wrote the story at Breitbart on which this gossip piece is based). --TS 04:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There are two breitbart pieces by Milo. One from December. Gawker is picking up the second and commenting. The first article was redacted by NBSB (presumably for defaming anti-GG Shanley) and hatted. Shanley operates under an anti-GG tag (or so-called SJW from the GG side). I don't know all the direct connections through reddit or 4chan/8chan as I don't follow them. Heck, I missed the Cultural marxism deletion because apparently only offsite followers know these links and just saw it on Jimbo's talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

breitbart Dec [1] and Jan [2]. Shanley Doxxed Milo which started harrassing texts and such and prompted a police report. --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I don't even know whether Gawker is regarded as a reliable source, but this is pure gossip recycled from Breitbart, and seems to be some kind of interpersonal feud between distasteful people, one of whom is supposed to have doxed the other.

I've been looking for mainstream sources on this, but if the doxing was in December perhaps I didn't look back far enough. Skimming the Breitbart article from December to which you link above, I see no mention of doxing. But I'll reserve judgement pending a reliable source. I'll make any further comments on substance at the article talk page. Thanks for the explanation.--TS 04:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a bit of a fright in reflecting on this. Essentially you're making a potentially defamatory statement, and a highly defamatory one at that, about a living person, and we at Wikipedia only have your word for the claim. I've seen nothing about this on Google News (conversely, all the harassment we document in the Gamergate article is prominently reported by reliable sources).

While we wait for the corroboration that you are sure will materialise any day now, I've temporarily hatted your new talk page section. If you would, could we please suspend this discussion until you have that reliable source? I'd greatly appreciate it if you would hat our discussion here or simply redact it, and it can be restored when fully corroborated. --TS 13:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate sanction enforcement

Your actions yesterday/today are being discussed here. Woodroar (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce a community decision,

you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators:
Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.

This block is for repeated BLP violations on Talk:GamerGate controversy, for making comments not directed at improving the article, and for repeatedly posting links to sources you knew and were told were unreliable and which contained material that was no suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The block is a general sanction under the GmaerGate community sanctions provisions and may not be reverse without my consent or consensus at a noticeboard. To appeal to a noticeboard, make a statement here and use {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} to request that your statement be copied to AN or ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)