User talk:DHeyward

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

Sunday
30
April


Please add comments to the bottom


A page you started (2016 Nice terrorist attack) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating 2016 Nice terrorist attack, DHeyward!

Wikipedia editor Pianoman320 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for adding this redirect!

To reply, leave a comment on Pianoman320's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

COI Notice[edit]

While this isn't looking at your editing... looking at one of the parties talk pages seems to indicate you might be interested in this.

Your ANI comment[edit]

DHeyward, I don't like having to come here for this, but your comment about Coffee was totally uncalled for. Until proven otherwise, Coffee is doing just fine as an admin, and suggesting they take a break from blocking for a year--come on man, that's unnecessarily patronizing, and as far as I'm concerned it was a personal attack. If you got a problem with them, bring it up in the appropriate forum; this was not that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are here for such a mild suggestion. I thought you'd be much more interested in comments like this. The amount of silliness over edit warring is what this place rather tedious. My comment was not a personal attack. Ask why this exploded into the drama that unfolded and its intransigent editors interacting with intransigent admins. --DHeyward (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, I just read Winkelvi's talk page thread and it's less than encouraging. Seriously, you may wish to revisit which user you choose to mentor. It was clear to me from the first two back and forth statements that Winkelvi was correctly quoting the 3RR policy but positing it in an odd manner ("first revert doesn't count" rather than saying it is blockable after the 4th revert). It doesn't mean WV was correct but he is far from dishonest and it devolved to those accusations shortly thereafter. That's not acceptable behavior. I hope you see that and take steps to address it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey DHeyward--I disagree on the first point, obviously. As I said, such (big) problems should be brought up elsewhere; if they're not, then by necessity they become just brief attacks ("comments") without proper evidence, you know that.

I haven't looked at Winkelvi's talk page recently; it's not one of my usual hangouts, but I suppose I should have a look. And let me add that I am not "choosing to mentor" Winkelvi or anyone else, though I will be happy to help--but I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you pointing at Coffee getting it wrong? What I know about this entire kerfuffle is fairly little, except for the pretty damning list of four reverts I saw in the 3R discussion. But the block is the block; I haven't been wanting to get involved in that discussion because it's pointless and I think the block was fine. I am also not worried about Coffee, if that's what you're getting at--it's not going to be Coffee's comments that put Winkelvi outside with the garbage, but rather those of other editors. Coffee, for all I know, did the right thing (the ANI thread) though I may have handled details in that process differently.

And whatever I may want to address, well, there's a coterie of at least three editors calling me names (as you say), and another one who thinks the entire admin corps (except for Coffee?) is corrupt for letting Winkelvi (despite his enormous block log!) off the hook all the time. So I should be the last one to butt in. I'm not surprised at those "cunt" comments--we know there's editors with poor manners. That they get to say what brought Eric Corbett before ArbCom, that's a different matter. But worse is that stuff they said about a fellow editor. Anyway, take it easy, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't have regular contact with Winkelvi so I just read his talk page to catch-up where all this venom is coming from. People wielding the ban hammer need to have some perspective. A passionate editor that gets caught up in an edit war over Billy the Kid just doesn't do it for me. This isn't a BLP violation or vandalism or POV pushing on a highly visible page, it's backwater WP:OWN drama on a page of interest to passionate editors. Personally, I like passionate editors and think we should be doing all we can to keep them. Short blocks if they get overheated, 1RR restrictions, etc. Anything that keeps them passionately editing. I'll take a 4RR Winkelvi edit to the Billy the Kid article over some of the non-stop POV pushing, BLP skirting edits by those that game the system. The talk page discussion devolved into ultimately calling Winkelvi a liar over the Billy the Kid article. An admin should have the common sense that when another admin steps in to help a passionate editor stay involved, they shouldn't fight them to the wall. Usually, editors that need long blocks or site bans demonstrate a pretty strong WP:NOTHERE behavior. Coffee didn't err technically on the block. It was the follow through to keep Winkelvi away from the project when other admins were stepping in to bear the "administrative burden" of patrolling Billy the Kid. The shiat show at ANI just dragged people with multi-year issues to it. It devolved into what you experienced and most editors/admins exited quickly as it's the adage against wrestling pigs: everyone gets covered in shiat but the pig likes it. Blocking admins need a big picture attitude. Is Winkelvi's story going to be "I got site banned because I made 4 edits to Billy the Kid?" I hope that's not the place this has become. --DHeyward (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Every one of these stories will be read in a dozen different ways, and so will this. I hope it has a positive ending for Winkelvi, and I don't agree with your reading of what the talk page discussion ultimately ended up as--certainly the ANI thread indicated that whenever a longtime and somewhat controversial editor gets blocked, muck gets raked up from all over the place. My personal interest, because of course I have one, is that no one's feelings get hurt irrevocably--not the one who got blocked, not the one who blocked, not the ones who disagree with the one who blocked, etc. Again, I just can't blame Coffee for the block, not at all--and next time, there's an ANI thread with someone complaining why this or that editor never gets blocked. Well, Coffee is one of the admins who makes what some would call difficult blocks. Floq is someone who makes what some would call difficult unblocks. I believe that all of those kinds of admins are necessary--but after having been raked over the coals multiple times in the last few days, justly and unjustly, I can't fault any of these folks for doing what they think is right. I think I've had my qualms with you in the past, but hey, you're here and you're still here, and I respect that, and I'll buy you a beer any time. [Speaking of which--I have a cooler full for my old pal Dennis Brown...]

I've had more than a few disagreements with Winkelvi in various article spaces and behavioral matters, so be it--I will not just stand by and watch him get accused of stuff at ANI--and not by Coffee, mind you. I may not always agree with Coffee, but I appreciate his track record and his willingness to stick his neck out. And I haven't even begun talking about the people here that I love. So you have a chance to do something better than I did, since I already blew it by being offended at something I could have let go if I had been a bigger person: solve/settle/soothe something without ruffling feathers. I've been working at it since 2007 or so. Oh! An anniversary coming up! Take it easy DHeyward, Drmies (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I doubt any differences we've had would ever preclude a beer. I may be prickly at times and a counter argument to others but I'd like to think I am amenable to change and understanding. My last interact with Winkelvi was that he strongly opposed an article name change I proposed (Rachel Dolezal). I've backed Winkelvi before and he's agreed with me before. The Hallmark of who I enjoy editing with are those that put aside personal differences and speak/articulate their mind. I've never found you lacking the ability to support or refute arguments on their merits rather than the editor. I cannot say that about all editors. An interesting watershed case for me was when I proposed a page move from Zoe Quinn to Zoë Quinn. It was an extremely minor change to reflect the persons preference to have a diacritic over the "e" in Zoe. It boiled Wikipedia to a nut shell: there were editors that agreed, there were editors that were open to the change if there was a reliable source or more confirmation and there were editors opposed simply because I proposed it. The most pompous scoffed at it because a journalism outlet known for diacritics did not use them. I had a rather entertaining discussion with the author of that magazine that got a laugh out on the fact that they overuse diacritics when they are uncalled for but missed a case where they were. Ultimately it changed as a number of sources weighed in including the subject. The rather pompous editors that opposed never acknowledged it. Still, I could sit and have a beer with all of them because in reality we are all editors and not primary authors. It is of course more pleasurable when the other editor understands why we are here and what we really do even when there are facades of ideology. I'd accept your beer and offer one of my own. As for Coffee or the other admins, I doubt I will remember their specific actions as I don't think they were entirely wrong. It's my experience that admins that make mistakes repeatedly are dealt with in time and if it's an anomaly, no action is necessary. I've seen enough desysops or retirements that may seem acrimonious but it's the way things are handled. There is really no need to complain. The same is true for editor indefs and any other misconduct. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Todd Heap[edit]

ESPN.com reported her cause of death as stated in the article, which you removed. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Until we have a name, no it's not BLP material. --DHeyward (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Continued whitewashing/reversion of cited material is vandalism. "Without a name" is a rule you made up. Desist or I'll go to ANI. Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)