User talk:DHeyward/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Your ANI comment

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

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)

Major donors to presidential campaigns

You said $10 million is the threshhold for a "major donor" on the Russian interference article talk page. I think it is far less. I don't believe there are more than a dozen individuals who donated more than $1 million. I could be wrong, and would be interested to see any data to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php The top 100 are all above $2 million. Soros on that list was $20 million at number 12. One of the Koch's was $4 million. The other wasn't listed so there are probably other bundling mechanisms. Devos was in the top 100 at $3.2 million. Prince was not in the top 100. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Post notice of arbitration enforcement notification

Please see WP:AE for relevant report. Sagecandor (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI note

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sagecandor (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

DHeyward (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My comments were sharp, not attacks. Templated twice, one for AP2 regarding the London attacks. I wasn't even online when the ANI was filed. The AE was cloased with no action. ANI has asked that the block be lifted even before I replied.. It should be a forum shopping boomerang for Sagecandor. Not waiting for me even to defend myself is beyond the pale and the definition of a punitive block. Please unblock. This is not an AE block because that would mean the blocking admin undid a previous admins AE close with no action. Unblock and unlog pleaase. Boing! said Zebedee DHeyward (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked already. Huon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Did you really block for an attack that was 12 hours old before I or anyone else could respond? Please note that your block undid an AE close and ponder that. --DHeyward (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC) The block I imposed was unrelated to the AE enforcement request, as that request was specifically related to the inapplicable WP:ARBAP2 sanctions. As was suggested, the personal attacks needed to be addressed independently of the AE request, and I acted on the subsequent ANI request and I did not undo an AE close. I certainly do consider calling another editor "idiotic" and a "busybody numbskull" as personal attacks, and not just sharp. But if anyone else disagrees, they are welcome to unblock without any need for my approval. Alternatively, if you agree not to repeat any such attacks, I'll be happy to lift the block as "time served". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat personal attacks and Sagecandor needs to stay off my talk page. If you logged it, it's AE action, no? That may be why ANI is still discussing. Please unlog it as AE was dealt with and closed and you would be undoing it by blocking me as an enforcement action. The evidence was the same and it was closed. Please read the ANI section. 12 hours after my last edit seems a bit of forum shopping. --DHeyward (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I repeat, I did *not* block you as an AE enforcement action. And, I *did not* log it as one. However, as subsequent contributions at ANI suggest there were mitigating circumstances, and as you have agreed not to repeat the same comments, I'm happy to unblock - I'll do it right away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, Boing! said Zebedee. I missed that it was Sagecandor not you, that logged it after you told him no, and admins have undone that. Thanks for unblock. --DHeyward (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He's giving you 3RR warnings?

So this PeterTheGreat is giving you 3RR warnings, yet he is the one edit warring? I've seen enough. If he persists in this manner, I'm going to take it to arbitration. His sole purpose here it to POV push and now he's screwing around with BLPs to boot? Is this an ongoing pattern?--MONGO 06:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only lead the to the fountain. It doesn'r cure the mentally deficient, though. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Its textbook trolling. I've neither the time nor patience to tolerate adolescent behavior like that. Both his childish warning to you (BLP means infractions from even talkpages can be removed of course) and his comments at said talkpage are just dogshit. He and others can certainly hate, dispise the subject at hand if they so choose, but if theyre so biased they obviously shouldn't be editing such a BLP.--MONGO 16:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI

In case you haven't seen it yet, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DHeyward. ansh666 19:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

From AN/I discussion

Hello, DHeyward! Sorry for dropping by. As much as I disagree with having distractions to discussion threads in general, in this case it isn't really harmful, so I hope you can let it stay. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 04:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not stand up to the harassment and let it stay removed. Do you think the images are meant for any other purpose than to be harrassing per WP:UNCIVIL? --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Their entire purpose, at least as far as I am concerned, is to inject a little humor into the discussion. EEng's zombie image and caption can as easily be misinterpreted as a slam on my position that bludgeoning is never acceptable as it can be be misinterpreted as a sarcastic slam on your position. I chose to take it for what I believe it was, a joke, and a pretty funny one at that. We all really need to keep our senses of humor about us, or editing here will become an overwhelming burden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the better way would have been to request removal individually per comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. (from WP:TALK#USE) and keep the layout clear (from WP:TPYES). But then by removing them arbitrarily, WP:TPO can be invoked which turns this into never ending cycle. I don't think these images were submitted in bad faith (rather it is part of a recurring trend), and I think by reverting them further will defeat your original purpose. But that's just my opinion. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 05:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs

Hi DHeyward,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kris Paronto

The article Kris Paronto has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Tagging pronouns in the lede of Zoe Quinn

Listen, I don't actually care that much about putting a note on the first use of pronouns, I just figured it would prevent people from going crazy and reverting it back to They. Yknow in case they considered it vandalism or something. But your explanation in your edit note is actually incorrect. In the majority of pages for which a singular "they" is used, the page also includes a small note indicating this is the preferred gender pronoun of the subject. This is recommended as a guideline as per MOS:GENDERID.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Tagging pronouns in the lede of Zoe Quinn

Listen, I don't actually care that much about putting a note on the first use of pronouns, I just figured it would prevent people from going crazy and reverting it back to They. Yknow in case they considered it vandalism or something. But your explanation in your edit note is actually incorrect. In the majority of pages for which a singular "they" is used, the page also includes a small note indicating this is the preferred gender pronoun of the subject. This is recommended as a guideline as per MOS:GENDERID.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

it wasn;t personal and I didn't bother to even check who made it. An ambiguou pronoun like "they" may deserve a note to explain why the singular, gendered pronoun wasn't used, but the opposite is not true. A pronoun that expresses gender is unqualified. It's pretty clear that we should not tag the first use of "she" in the Chelsea Manning article.

Complaining about an administrator

Thank you for your advice on where to bring a formal complaint, Would it be possible to get some insight in to what you meant when you said "be sure you know what you want when going to those fora." I am quite clear in my own mind and have a draft, but do not want to be accused of canvassing, and want to be taken seriously. I also do not want the process to be hijacked, or be diverted from the very narrow issue which I have that is at issue. Sport and politics (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what your particular issue entails. There are things like WP:ADMINACCT as well as other things regarding Arbitration Enforcement. Some issues will stand on a single instance, some generally require a pattern. If you think an admin should be desysopped by ArbCom, that's different path than asking for arbitration enforcement or community recall. Filing an WP:ANI has the chance it will boomerang. Filing an ArbCom case is unlikely to boomerang but will also have a large hurdle for acceptance. Filing anything will likely create a WP:INVOLVED situation and prevent the particular admin from taking action again. You should not have problems with a single admin unless they are complete WP:DICKs. --DHeyward (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Tagging pronouns in the lede of Zoe Quinn

Listen, I don't actually care that much about putting a note on the first use of pronouns, I just figured it would prevent people from going crazy and reverting it back to They. Yknow in case they considered it vandalism or something. But your explanation in your edit note is actually incorrect. In the majority of pages for which a singular "they" is used, the page also includes a small note indicating this is the preferred gender pronoun of the subject. This is recommended as a guideline as per MOS:GENDERID.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

it wasn;t personal and I didn't bother to even check who made it. An ambiguou pronoun like "they" may deserve a note to explain why the singular, gendered pronoun wasn't used, but the opposite is not true. A pronoun that expresses gender is unqualified. It's pretty clear that we should not tag the first use of "she" in the Chelsea Manning article.

Complaining about an administrator

Thank you for your advice on where to bring a formal complaint, Would it be possible to get some insight in to what you meant when you said "be sure you know what you want when going to those fora." I am quite clear in my own mind and have a draft, but do not want to be accused of canvassing, and want to be taken seriously. I also do not want the process to be hijacked, or be diverted from the very narrow issue which I have that is at issue. Sport and politics (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what your particular issue entails. There are things like WP:ADMINACCT as well as other things regarding Arbitration Enforcement. Some issues will stand on a single instance, some generally require a pattern. If you think an admin should be desysopped by ArbCom, that's different path than asking for arbitration enforcement or community recall. Filing an WP:ANI has the chance it will boomerang. Filing an ArbCom case is unlikely to boomerang but will also have a large hurdle for acceptance. Filing anything will likely create a WP:INVOLVED situation and prevent the particular admin from taking action again. You should not have problems with a single admin unless they are complete WP:DICKs. --DHeyward (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It must be me

Definition 2 [1]

• ABC: [2]
• NBC: [3][4]
• USAToday: [5]
• BBC (uses quotes, not BBC voice): [6]
• NECN:[7]
• Corpus Christi: [8]
• Austin American Stateman: [9]
• Chicago Tribune (attrinuted): [10]
• Reuters: [11]

And dozens more spanning multiple events. --DHeyward (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's modern day version day Samaritan:

• "guy with gun" is the Samaritans. Generally reviled by house POV.
• "good guy with gun" -> unheard of by elitists. Certainly not anyone we should praise or even acknowledge exists. Not neighbors with any of the elites.

Fits the parable to a tee.

Do you remember how this correlates with 9/11 issues

I removed some pretty far fetched categories and was reverted with a snarky and taunting comment here. How does this compare to like 9/11...were you ever involved in this category discussion at the article I just linked?--MONGO 15:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this PetertheWhatever person ever going to cease wikihounding you? Next time I'm tossing an arbcom case at him. Has a checkuser ever been initiated?--MONGO 17:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no shortage of throwaway accounts used by one or several persons to POV push. I guess I had stepped away for so long from political articles I had forgotten how desperate the left is to promote their version of reality.--MONGO 13:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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.

Roy Moore

Hello, DHeyward. Thanks for trying to help at the article Roy Moore, here, although I would have preferred it if you would have first suggested the change at the talk page. (That was my problem with Anythingyouwant - that he made his edits unilaterally and without discussion, even though there is active discussion at the talk page about the wording of that very sentence.) Anyhow, I would like to request that you replace the odd term "teenage women" with something like "older teenagers" or "teenagers 16 and over". In Moore's case he freely admits approaching and dating 16 and 17 year olds (16 is the age of consent in Alabama) - in other words, high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors. I don't think many people would describe such girls as "women", and as far as I know, no reliable source does. That is exactly what we have been discussing at the talk page - the best wording to get across the notion that he denied dating underage girls (i.e., under 16) but admitted dating girls older than that. You can see several of my suggestions for such a wording at the talk page. Your edit could be at the least a good interim solution while we work out a consensus wording. Would you consider modifying your edit to something other than "teenage women"? --MelanieN (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares, but I’m the one who started “the active discussion on the talk page about that very sentence”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Useful_idiot#WP:BRD

Please re-join the discussion. Your opinion is wanted, since you have not stated it yet. Thanks, My name is not dave (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)\

WTF

Can you leave my lunch dates out of this, please? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

--and so your colleague is off the hook I think deserves a good "Fuck off, douchebag." --DHeyward (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand a few things here, DHeyward. Your example was in incredibly poor taste. If you want to defend your friend, try a better way. I got nothing against Anythingyouwant beyond my disagreements about various Wikipedia things, and I certainly don't bring their personal life into anything, nor have I done that with yours. "Fuck off" by itself isn't usually blockable, but you're going more than one step further. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Calling Roy Moore my "colleague" and insinuating I was condoning sexual contact between Moore and anyone, let alone children, was incredibly poor taste[12]. He is not "my colleague," I never said any of his behavior was "okay" or "more okay." I am not the one that took it the extra step. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Unless you're a judge, Roy Moore is not your colleague. Anythingyouwant is your colleague, and mine. The thread wasn't about judge Moore, it was about Anythingyouwant. There is nothing you or I can do to let judge Moore off the hook, if he is on one in the first place; this was an arbitration thread on Wikipedia, where we discussed a Wikipedia editor's edits. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry but it appears you are talking exclusively about Moore until "Besides" when you mention Anythingyouwant. Your choice of the word "your colleague" as opposed to "our colleague" or simply "Anythingyouwant" when you had only mentioned Moore is only generously ambiguous. i don't think my reading of your sentence is farfetched. Here it is: It seems to me you want me to support the notion that between 14 and 16 something fundamentally changes in young women, that biological or calendar age works exactly the same way for every body, that since the judge allegedly didn't rape any of the women it was OK, or more OK--and so your colleague is off the hook. Tell me where I was supposed to divine a switch to Anythingyouwant. --DHeyward (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought you read English pretty good. How you get to think that I would consider you a colleague of an old white guy in Alabama who's running for senate, a former judge, I don't know that. And I said your colleague since...well, I think that's clear too. I suppose your "sorry but" is the best I can get--is it common where you're from to retaliate over supposed insults by calling people "douchebag"? Is that making America great again? Drmies (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I read and write very well. Apparently not as well as the tenured professor at the "Center for Kids who can't Read Good." I usually only use descriptive aphorisms when ... they, well, deserve it, Derek. Let's be clear, you insulted me on the AE page. You then took great offense at an allegory that didn't insult you. You then brought it to my talk page with breathless rage. That was when you earned it and you followed up with more innuendo regarding Trump. I'm pretty sure that where you are from is the place where Roy Moore is about to be elected and MAGA is at 80%, not my place. --DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I just got pinged here, this page wasn’t watchlisted. I already objected about as strongly as I could at AE regarding Drmies’ odd statement “that since the judge allegedly didn't rape any of the women it was OK, or more OK--and so your colleague is off the hook”. As User:Drmies confirms here at User Talk, he meant me. And I think it was just incredibly insulting and wrong. And I’m very disappointed that Drmies does not see two things. First, that the lead of the Roy Moore lead grotesquesly said he did not deny something that he did partly deny, so it was a dishonest fucking lie in the lead of a BLP, and I’d be just as outraged if the lead of the Obama BLP said he’s a cross-dressing bozo, because I edit Wikipedia neutrally. The second thing I’m very disappointed in Drmies about has to do with the term “sexual assault” and all I’ve ever said about it is that when we use that term to describe something much less than rape, like a butt grab, then we should say what kind of sexual assault, e.g. “Drmies sexually assaulted the dentist by pinching her butt”. Only someone who isn’t paying attention would conclude that I think sexual assault less than rape is okay, which is what Drmies accused both me and Heyward Of believing. It’s total crap. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have said "he". Anythingyouwant, sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. But I don't think what you accuse me of thinking. Best, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN for Useful idiot

Hi DH, here's a link to the DRN discussion regarding Useful idiot: [13]. All best, -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR

That one is a 1RR violation, as well as violation of the "consensus required" provision. Here's your chance to self-revert. Volunteer Marek  04:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, holy crap, that's your FOURTH revert in less than 24 hours on a 1RR restricted article!  Volunteer Marek  04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I've reverted to pre Phillips version while consensus discussion continues as you requested. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, no this is NOT a self-revert as it completely removes the info which has consensus for inclusion. This appears to be a sneaky attempt by you to pretend you self reverted when in fact you just made another revert. I was trying to be nice about this but this blatant attempt at WP:GAME is sort of irritating. Off to drama boards we go...  Volunteer Marek  04:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If you genuinely wish to self revert then this is the appropriate version. Not gonna wait long, given that you've actually made four reverts on 1RR article, then tried to pull off that little fake-self-revert stunt. Volunteer Marek  04:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement result

Per the outcome of this arbitration enforcement request, you are topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a wide net considering this was one article...maybe ban him from just that article or set of related subarticles.--MONGO 03:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward...the website is overrun by partisan sanctimonious hacks. The days of fighting the conspiracy theorists on 9/11 articles as we did more than a decade ago are long gone...replaced by a sullen pack of maroons incapable of applying fairness or objectivity in their decision making. If one has even the faintest lean to the right here, you're exiled, yet almost none of them can compare their contributions history to mine and as far as I am concerned...they can all go fuck themselves. I am well aware of all you have done for this website...the risks you have taken to try and restore balance and maintain policies here even when faced an with an admin corp too naïve to see or care or who overtly defend these POV pushers. If you resume your efforts to try and keep articles neutral and reliably referenced in these political hot topics all you can do is follow policy as strictly as possible.--MONGO 09:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s a pretty bad sanction. When numerous experienced editors don’t understand it, and the sanctioning admin has to try to explain it over and over and over because it makes no sense then the usefulness of it should be self explanatory. The edit war aside, your edits were clearly improving the article, especially with regards to BLP compliance. We should never ever ever be sanctioning editors for good faith attempts to stay in line with BLP. This appears to be a brand new admin, so hopefully their judgment improves with time. Sorry it had to come at your expense. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yikes!! Quite the departure from where they said they would be contributing. Makes a lot of sense now. --DHeyward (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What? Arkon (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

After that revert, I'll need some Pow Wow Chow, one of Pocahontas favorite recipes. That red link needs fixing but to which author?--DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Enjoy your break away from that slimey shithole of an article and the low life denizens that misuse this website to take giant craps all over their political opponents. MONGO 06:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DHeyward. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)