User talk:DHeyward/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:DHeyward. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Chris Kyle
I've left some comments at the talk page of the article regarding the latest kerfuffle there. My feeling is that once the PP expires, the status quo in the article regarding the awards needs to be restored. Thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thst'd be my thought. The Intercept is not a reliable source considering what they strung together. They found a way to use USA Today's article on secret awards with redacted citations to defame Kyle. Thry are the ones that are stealing valor. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think at this point, the only thing we can do is let the truth be the truth and wait for the record to be corrected to match the DD-214. Which it will, eventually. It doesn't seem that anything you or I or anyone else says will change the other individual's mind because they appear to believe Kyle was a liar and our opinions are based solely on POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's only one editor. I'm done trying to convince him. Until the DD215 is filed, the article should reflect the only RS available which is the DD214 as well as consensus which is 2 SS and 5 BS. --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think at this point, the only thing we can do is let the truth be the truth and wait for the record to be corrected to match the DD-214. Which it will, eventually. It doesn't seem that anything you or I or anyone else says will change the other individual's mind because they appear to believe Kyle was a liar and our opinions are based solely on POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify
I actually agree with you RE outing, however not all oversighters do, and the current wording in the outing policy can (imho not by anyone thinking rationally) support that interpretation. X is person X is outing. X is socialmediaprofile X is not always considered outing by the people who would oversight the material. Its currently under discussion on the outing talkpage since Jan but there are a number of issues. Bear in mind Kingsindian's ombudsman request that came back with the answer that the name of someone who has been a witness in court, given interviews to the press, and been named in books, is not public information as they may have been compelled to testify unwillingly. The entire outing and oversight area needs to be overhauled and actual impartial oversight of CU/OS needs to be implemented. There is little point getting into an argument with Hijari, as his opinion of the policy/practice is shared by at least some of the people who enforce it.Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was directing my comment at Hijiri88. I understood your comment. It makes sense if the profiles are also psuedonymous (i.e linking a WP account to a reddit account might be harrassment but not outing). Facebook, though, is generally IRL accounts with full names and real life identities. I've never known them to split hairs over that or claim it wasn't outing because there are cases where the request to them is "this editor just linked to my IRL facebook account." They can't require it to be true to act on it or consider it outing. They would defeat the entire purpose of the policy. The various sockpuppets that made up accounts for me were not the sharpest tools in the shed and were caught independent of me but the talk page hatted all three of the discussions as outing, so it's really hard for me to see editors ignore that. --DHeyward (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well currently OS is not enforced equally due to differing opinions of who picks it up. Due to lack of peer review and oversight/auditing, nothing is standardised. When something *is* queried with the ombudsman, it always comes back with a supporting 'yes this correct' result, despite the contradictory nature of some of the requests. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death: I don't really care about oversight as much as conduct enforcement. The editors that did it were indeffed and oversight would have made that more difficult. Admins should be able to recognize it, though. Editors on the talk page did. I didn't hat any of those discussions and they all were shutdown before I read them. I commented in one after it was shutdown just because a few editors including the sockpuppet that did it already accused me. See the nice edit summary[1]. He wasn't blocked for that personal attack and it's clear the effort he put in to create Joe job facebook accounts, post, and delete was to poison the well. I'm fortunate that I don't really need to hide from harassment or outing and I can fight it without IRL consequence (I was outed many years ago with possible IRL consequences when a lowlife through my edits discovered and contacted my employer). Others, either through the nature of the harassment or the details of the outing cannot fight it. The pushback at aversion to OSing links goes to the WP:BADSITES discussion. There are sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica that have no redeemable qualities. Browse the ED entries on WP editors and ask if a link to those pages should ever be allowed even though it's psuedonymous and sometimes IRL identities - I doubt it would be "case by case". Even a "Hey, checkout user X's page on ED" without a link is likely to be OS'd after being rev del'd. There are sites like Wikipediocracy that have value to the project but also have problematic content. In any event, the policy is "allowed on a case by case basis," not "oversighted on a case by case basis" which implies an OS should grant permission before posting it (no, I'm not going to bring up that subtlety). Oversight seems to be as much about who files it as the evidence that is filed these days. --DHeyward (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I will neither confirm nor deny that when an oversight request has been made in the past that was denied, it may have been re-lodged by someone else a day later with a different outcome *whistle* Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death: I don't really care about oversight as much as conduct enforcement. The editors that did it were indeffed and oversight would have made that more difficult. Admins should be able to recognize it, though. Editors on the talk page did. I didn't hat any of those discussions and they all were shutdown before I read them. I commented in one after it was shutdown just because a few editors including the sockpuppet that did it already accused me. See the nice edit summary[1]. He wasn't blocked for that personal attack and it's clear the effort he put in to create Joe job facebook accounts, post, and delete was to poison the well. I'm fortunate that I don't really need to hide from harassment or outing and I can fight it without IRL consequence (I was outed many years ago with possible IRL consequences when a lowlife through my edits discovered and contacted my employer). Others, either through the nature of the harassment or the details of the outing cannot fight it. The pushback at aversion to OSing links goes to the WP:BADSITES discussion. There are sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica that have no redeemable qualities. Browse the ED entries on WP editors and ask if a link to those pages should ever be allowed even though it's psuedonymous and sometimes IRL identities - I doubt it would be "case by case". Even a "Hey, checkout user X's page on ED" without a link is likely to be OS'd after being rev del'd. There are sites like Wikipediocracy that have value to the project but also have problematic content. In any event, the policy is "allowed on a case by case basis," not "oversighted on a case by case basis" which implies an OS should grant permission before posting it (no, I'm not going to bring up that subtlety). Oversight seems to be as much about who files it as the evidence that is filed these days. --DHeyward (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well currently OS is not enforced equally due to differing opinions of who picks it up. Due to lack of peer review and oversight/auditing, nothing is standardised. When something *is* queried with the ombudsman, it always comes back with a supporting 'yes this correct' result, despite the contradictory nature of some of the requests. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Neoliberalism
I believe something derped on your reply there. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw it. extra cr-lf I guess. Hard to spot those in the crappy editor window. fixed it. --DHeyward (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
"widely called terrorism"
Dear DHeyward, there's a discussion going on at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting about whether it is appropriate to flat-out call the shooting "terrorism" rather than noting that it was widely denounced as terrorism. The concern is that the word "terrorist" is not NPOV. I imagine most of us would call it a terrorist attack in real life, but perhaps not in the encyclopedia. As I understand things, Wikipedia isn't supposed to enshrine any particular politics in the content of the articles---no matter how popular or right that politics is. (See WP:TERRORIST.) Might you be willing to take a gander at the discussion and reconsider your edit? Omphaloscope talk 18:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| "This is me." | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 1257 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Thank you for taking charge against faulty reasoning! R00b07 (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
Deny Collapse
With all due, "you bleeding heart PC scum" is basically talk page vandalism, and misuse of the edit request system. I think it's perfectly appropriate to call it that. TimothyJosephWood 21:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought it was a different section. I think I rollbacked my edit before you even commented here. --DHeyward (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 August 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dheyward, I hope you'll reconsider your rejection of the mediation. I think it'd be a useful discussion. Regarding Islam, I see many many articles about critical issues. Category:Islam-related controversies. Regarding WP:COATRACK, I believe that more "senior" policies take precedence. Those are my views, at least. If we could have a structured discussion about this issue I'm sure we can come to a mutually agreeable compromise. Felsic2 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- The point wasn't that there aren't articles about terrorism and connections that specific acts of terror have with Islam. They are covered in the articles about the attack and when it appropriate we link it to Islam. What we don't do is add all the terror attacks in the article on Islam because that article is not about terrorism.. Your argument that there are "senior" policies that take precedence and demand we list notable terrorist acts in the article about Islam is simply not true. Islam, the article on the religion, is not a coatrack for terrorism and it seems pretty obvious that a section in the Islam article about "Islamic terrorism" would turn it into a coatrack dominated by an agenda to equate Islam with terror. Even beyond coatrack, we would then have SYNTH I've not seen a good argument that we should even be discussing a compromise of our principles. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'd draw a major distinction between "Islam", an article about a religion of around a billion people, which has hundreds of sub-articles, and an article about a particular commercial brand of firearm. I think a better analogy would be the "notable persons" entries in articles about cities. While those cities may have thousands of millions of non-notable residents, we nonetheless mention the famous ones, even if they had no impact on the city itself. Another comparison would be to articles on airplanes, which typically mention all significant crashes.
- This is the kind of reasoned discussion that mediation is for. Even if you choose not to participate, I hope you'll continue to work towards finding consensus, or allow a consensus to form. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus formed and is rather obvious throught the topic area. It is even covered the same way across firearms, religions and cities though not consciously. You aren't asking to cover neutral aspects as you highlighted about cities and airplanes, rather you want to cover notable mass murderers, and only mass murders in articles that are a fraction of the size of those above. Noting that a particular firearm was used in, say the San Bernardino murders, but failing to note that the same firearm was used by police to stop it is another part of the problem. For every AR-15 variant used in an illegal use shooting, 20+ police show up with a variant. For every glock shooting, 20+ police show up with glocks. The sourcing for the murder weapon firearm model is generally very fact based but sources rarely give the context or relevance (i.e incidences of police officers using glocks to shoot unarmed black men is easy to create but there is analysis as to whether its significant or relevant to glocks). A quick look at the Boeing 737 shows the difference. First the article is very long with many aspects of the history, performance, etc. All are well sourced and Incident/accident isn't overwhelming. Second, the incident/accident section (note, intentional is not present) has sourced, broad analysis of its record before listing specific ones (and more exist outside the article). This type of context is not frequently published for firearms (or doesn't exist) and if it were published, it likely would be challenged through POV or SYNTH as firearm use is a political topic (a firearm model's technical details are not political). Third, the incidents and accidents aren't limited to snuff accounts of passengers dying. The first incident listed for the 737 is a no-fatality balked takeoff that overran the runway (i.e. it's a solid plane story). The second is about a hijacking that ended with no passenger fatalities but the two hijackers were killed. There's nothing that's comparable being proposed and it could not be covered neutrally, nor can it be covered without synth and coatrack. There is no "Illegal use of 737's that caused multiple deaths" section. As a fourth note, airplanes and cities are not controversial. There have not been protracted battles on wiki and off trying to defend and demonize cities and airplanes the way firearms and religion have been. Like Islam, there are a billion small arms on the planet. There are many variants and models of firearms just as there are offshoots in religion. In articles where we can remove the political POV and inflammatory material, we do. Firearm models fall in that category as all the politics are covered elsewhere and the politics are rarely confined to a model. --DHeyward (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a good discussion. Is there some reason we can't continue it in mediation? Felsic2 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus formed and is rather obvious throught the topic area. It is even covered the same way across firearms, religions and cities though not consciously. You aren't asking to cover neutral aspects as you highlighted about cities and airplanes, rather you want to cover notable mass murderers, and only mass murders in articles that are a fraction of the size of those above. Noting that a particular firearm was used in, say the San Bernardino murders, but failing to note that the same firearm was used by police to stop it is another part of the problem. For every AR-15 variant used in an illegal use shooting, 20+ police show up with a variant. For every glock shooting, 20+ police show up with glocks. The sourcing for the murder weapon firearm model is generally very fact based but sources rarely give the context or relevance (i.e incidences of police officers using glocks to shoot unarmed black men is easy to create but there is analysis as to whether its significant or relevant to glocks). A quick look at the Boeing 737 shows the difference. First the article is very long with many aspects of the history, performance, etc. All are well sourced and Incident/accident isn't overwhelming. Second, the incident/accident section (note, intentional is not present) has sourced, broad analysis of its record before listing specific ones (and more exist outside the article). This type of context is not frequently published for firearms (or doesn't exist) and if it were published, it likely would be challenged through POV or SYNTH as firearm use is a political topic (a firearm model's technical details are not political). Third, the incidents and accidents aren't limited to snuff accounts of passengers dying. The first incident listed for the 737 is a no-fatality balked takeoff that overran the runway (i.e. it's a solid plane story). The second is about a hijacking that ended with no passenger fatalities but the two hijackers were killed. There's nothing that's comparable being proposed and it could not be covered neutrally, nor can it be covered without synth and coatrack. There is no "Illegal use of 737's that caused multiple deaths" section. As a fourth note, airplanes and cities are not controversial. There have not been protracted battles on wiki and off trying to defend and demonize cities and airplanes the way firearms and religion have been. Like Islam, there are a billion small arms on the planet. There are many variants and models of firearms just as there are offshoots in religion. In articles where we can remove the political POV and inflammatory material, we do. Firearm models fall in that category as all the politics are covered elsewhere and the politics are rarely confined to a model. --DHeyward (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- The point wasn't that there aren't articles about terrorism and connections that specific acts of terror have with Islam. They are covered in the articles about the attack and when it appropriate we link it to Islam. What we don't do is add all the terror attacks in the article on Islam because that article is not about terrorism.. Your argument that there are "senior" policies that take precedence and demand we list notable terrorist acts in the article about Islam is simply not true. Islam, the article on the religion, is not a coatrack for terrorism and it seems pretty obvious that a section in the Islam article about "Islamic terrorism" would turn it into a coatrack dominated by an agenda to equate Islam with terror. Even beyond coatrack, we would then have SYNTH I've not seen a good argument that we should even be discussing a compromise of our principles. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Bare URLs
Please don't use bare URLs for citations. It could lead to link rot. Parsley Man (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
A small, perhaps silly, recognition for your rather insightful point about The Wachowski Brothers being a corporate name. You turned what was a rather political/pov discussion into something far more nuanced and, frankly, interesting. Even if I might prefer one outcome to the discussion based on my personal opinion and pov (recognition, even celebration, of trans folks' accomplishments by using their names and avoiding deadnaming), insight deserves recognition and you make a persuasive point. Things like this, even when there's disagreement, make Wikipedia a better place. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC) |
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Your edit on Doug Weller's talk page
This edit summary makes little sense. The sentence sets the context for the response. --NeilN talk to me 04:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Setting context does not allow for civility, harassment or BLP violations. There are other options, including a non-answer or an answer in a DR area such as the ArbCom page where it was originally asked. It's clearly an wp:aspersion. It's very close to WP:AOHA, BLP and there has been no evidence presented. "I'm not going to answer because you're being a dick and harassing me on and off wiki" sets context, too, but it is also uncivil and not tolerated in those spaces. If they have an issue with Auerbaxh's behavior, dispute resolution is the answer, not accusations with no evidence on user talk pages. He's a living person. --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC).
- Your paraphrasing is inflammatory and unhelpful. If you have a problem with Doug Weller's response there are avenues open to you too. --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. I saw that "Clearly not." is adequate. He did not need to cast aspersions by accusing a living person of hounding/harassment. My paraphrasing above was to show how wrong you have been in defending language that is incivil when its only purpose is to inflame. How is it that you see my paraphrasing as inflammatory but Doug's language as necessary? Neither is required for the answer he gave. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Doug's language is not necessary (nothing is "necessary") but neither does it need to be redacted. It's purpose was to state context by bringing up what Doug sees as poor behavior. Using your real identity on Wikipedia does not create a special shield around your actions here. --NeilN talk to me 05:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't need to be oversighted. Redaction is a courtesy for incivil/inflammatory/insulting comments directed at editors regardless what name they use. You agree it's not necessary, you understand an editor took offense and you see that it's inflammatory. It did not change Doug's answer in the slightest. Why keep it? Why edit war to keep it? Why continue to offend when it's just as easy to remove it? Isn't that he essence of civility? --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't need to be redacted. It wasn't incivil. It provided context to why Doug answered the way he did. Your paraphrasing was unnecessary but I'm certainly not going to redact it. And editors being "offended" whenever their behavior is called into question is not unusual. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- My "paraphrasing" did not identify anyone. It illustrated that "context" is not an excuse for incivility. Had I mentioned an editor, I'd expect it to be redacted. Heck, if I slighted someone by misgendering them, I'd expect it to be redacted for offense. If it were malicious, to be oversighted. Doug offended Auerbach and refactoring did not provide any context substantially different from "Clearly not." Heck, WP:NOTHERE suffices and is used all the time without accusing people of deplorable conduct. Doug can certainly believe all sorts of nasty things but on wiki we limit those types of aspersions to a) evidence based, b) dispute resolution. Drive by accusations are not allowed for "context." Bring evidence to DR or don't say it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly we disagree. And what "DR" venue are you proposing? --NeilN talk to me 06:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to me, this is an ARCA request regarding the question Auerbach posed. He posed on a Arb talk page as an open ArbCom question on a specific ArbCom case, was directed to Doug's talk page and was disparaged for asking. I don't know why all the Arbs that read his request for "Clarification" didn't send him to ARCA where "Clarifications" are handled. Everyone can weigh in there and it's not personal like on User Talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly we disagree. And what "DR" venue are you proposing? --NeilN talk to me 06:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- My "paraphrasing" did not identify anyone. It illustrated that "context" is not an excuse for incivility. Had I mentioned an editor, I'd expect it to be redacted. Heck, if I slighted someone by misgendering them, I'd expect it to be redacted for offense. If it were malicious, to be oversighted. Doug offended Auerbach and refactoring did not provide any context substantially different from "Clearly not." Heck, WP:NOTHERE suffices and is used all the time without accusing people of deplorable conduct. Doug can certainly believe all sorts of nasty things but on wiki we limit those types of aspersions to a) evidence based, b) dispute resolution. Drive by accusations are not allowed for "context." Bring evidence to DR or don't say it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't need to be redacted. It wasn't incivil. It provided context to why Doug answered the way he did. Your paraphrasing was unnecessary but I'm certainly not going to redact it. And editors being "offended" whenever their behavior is called into question is not unusual. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't need to be oversighted. Redaction is a courtesy for incivil/inflammatory/insulting comments directed at editors regardless what name they use. You agree it's not necessary, you understand an editor took offense and you see that it's inflammatory. It did not change Doug's answer in the slightest. Why keep it? Why edit war to keep it? Why continue to offend when it's just as easy to remove it? Isn't that he essence of civility? --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Doug's language is not necessary (nothing is "necessary") but neither does it need to be redacted. It's purpose was to state context by bringing up what Doug sees as poor behavior. Using your real identity on Wikipedia does not create a special shield around your actions here. --NeilN talk to me 05:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. I saw that "Clearly not." is adequate. He did not need to cast aspersions by accusing a living person of hounding/harassment. My paraphrasing above was to show how wrong you have been in defending language that is incivil when its only purpose is to inflame. How is it that you see my paraphrasing as inflammatory but Doug's language as necessary? Neither is required for the answer he gave. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your paraphrasing is inflammatory and unhelpful. If you have a problem with Doug Weller's response there are avenues open to you too. --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of WikiConference North America 2016 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WikiConference North America 2016 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/WikiConference North America 2016 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. Keilana (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
ANI
I guess it was inevitable - you're mentioned here, etc. To emphasize, this is nothing personal. I think we can probably collaborate well in the future once this minor speed bump is resolved. LavaBaron (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
|
It's a bit early for a beer. Just a little half and half for me, please. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC) |
A boilermaker for you
- MONGO, I hadn't even had lunch yet. Come on man. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- A boilermaker first thing in the morning will put hair on your back and men and women alike want that. Fact!--MONGO 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like a good way to check for reptilians as well! Never trust the hairless. I saw the original documentary on that. Don't forget the UN. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- A boilermaker first thing in the morning will put hair on your back and men and women alike want that. Fact!--MONGO 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Mentioned at AN
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Really?
I'm not in the mood to get in an edit war with an admin in an area like American politics. But reverting to the last stable version is how WP:BOLD works. And that's what I did. You should be the one getting consensus for your changes, not the other way around. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that is how BOLD works. Reverting is how WP:BRD works (the "R" part). The new deletion discussion and talk page discussion is how it's resolved. Many editors contributed to thoe edits over weeks and you boldly removd that work. Clearly that didn't have consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Firearm receivers
Please look at talk section for the article. Your assistance is requested in formulating the wording for a proposed subsection of the article. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
restored RfC
It appears you deleted a RfC opened by another editor, as well as comments by two editors [2] from the Talk page of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. I have restored it/them. The page itself has been protected by Airplaneman due to edit warring, which happens; edit warring at a Talk page, though, is a pretty big deal. I can't imagine what you were thinking. BlueSalix (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions - firearms
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Felsic2 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Personal comments
This comment, "...these agenda driven accounts seek only to demonize firearms with undue weight accounts of rare use in crime", is an inappropriate personal attack that fails to assume good faith. Please withdraw it and do not make another like it. Firearms articles, presumably including the project itself, are covered by ArbCom's discretionary sanctions that specifically prohibit behavior like this. Felsic2 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) .. I am very troubled that there may be a pattern of continual personal attacks against others by User:DHeyward. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Your personal attack.
User:DHeyward: I'll thank you kindly to immediately strike-out your personal attack against me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitposting[3]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) That diff is not even within the same postcode as a personal attack, far less the same ballpark. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is The Geek Group. The discussion is about the topic The Geek Group. Thank you. —Zlassiter (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Please
Hi. Please stop your continued bad faith assumptions, the most recent example of which is your parenthetical comment: "(coinciding with the creation of the article to disparage him)"[4]. Thanks. (You are of course free to delete this message, and/or to request I not post again on your talk page, except in required cases such as WP:ANI notices) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Please self-revert
I restored the material you deleted from Hillary Clinton email controversy, thus making your deletion controversial. You reverted me, thus making the same controversial edit a second time after it had been challenged. I know that you are familiar with the Discretionary Sanctions. This was a violation. I suggest you self-revert, restore the material, and get consensus on the talk page before doing it again. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, DHeyward. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In honour of your barnstar on my page
[5]. I hope you're doing well. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC).
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
  
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Edit warring
Please avoid edit warring, especially on high-visibility articles like 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting. I'm not sure exactly how many reverts you've made, and I have no desire to block anyone, but I'd really like to avoid full-protecting an article about such a rapidly developing situation (as has been requested at WP:RFPP. Continue to use the talk page to work out an acceptable solution, and if there's any way I can help resolve this dispute (short of taking a "side"), just let me know. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton: I've made one revert. I've added sourced, updated material, not reverted. I've been reverted many times though. CRYBLP is being used to keep out well sourced information. Google "Esteban Santiago" news and it's clear he fits WP:WELLKNOWN as his name, family history, arrest, military record, residence, etc, etc are in hundreds of reliable sources. The editor who reverted my edits is claiming to be waiting for a court document. We never use court documents as a source. Please explain to him the BLP policy, WELLKNOWN criteria and why WP:PRIMARY prevents us from using indictments and nor do we wait. --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
CSS styling in templates
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)