Misplaced Pages

User talk:DHeyward

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DHeyward (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 29 June 2015 (→You violated the 1RR at Gamergate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:52, 29 June 2015 by DHeyward (talk | contribs) (→You violated the 1RR at Gamergate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)



Sunday 29 December12:45 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)

OR noticeboard

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. DHeyward (talk)

American Politics 2

I must be daft...but where is American Politics 1?--MONGO 01:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it...it should have been titled simply Arzel. Is there a pattern here...seems after nosuccess in one venue the complatants proceed to the next venues. In the Arzel case the end result of an RfcU against Arzel was mainly a word of caution. This led soon to the arbitration case. In the Collect case, it followed in the heels of a long Afd battle where those complaining against Collect lost.--MONGO 01:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for my defense. I guess they don't know my history of working on liberal subjects like national parks, Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and supporting the FAC on the Hillary Clinton article while also defending BLP on the George Bush article where I led an Rfc effort to keep things like calling him a "drunk" out of that article (though it did end up in a daughter article). Pretty perplexing...since most of my work could be broadly construed as related at least tangentially to American Politics, this looks like a site ban for me. Well. Not sure what to say to this matter. Little ole me isn't worth waging too big a battle for so don't get yourself in a scrape.--MONGO 05:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts

Be careful of 3RR. I've asked for page protection but in the meantime it's best no one be blocked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

These are blatant BLP violations. I don't think I am close to 3RR though. --DHeyward (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Adding a source is a BLP vio?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Attributing other peoples words to Watts is a BLP. So is continuing to use WTW like "claims" when it's only to disparage the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh? No one is attributing words to him he didn't say, especially not in the edit you reverted, and saying he "claimed" something instead of "wrote" it isn't disparaging him.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The source appears to only discuss what Delingpole and Rawls "claims," not Watts. At least I couldn't find it. "Claims" is a WP:WTW and is not a hard concept to understand. When we can use language like "wrote" or "said" in place of words like "claims", we do it. Go disparage living people on another site if you feel the need to do so. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) You guys are all headed for WP:AE if you don't chill out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward: Your edit here is unsigned so it might be missed that it's you supporting "1". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pings FYI

FYI the {{ping}} and a ~~~~ must be in the same edit to trigger the notification. Strongjam (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dang, I always forget that. Thx. --DHeyward (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FDJK001

I think the conversation I'm having on their talkpage is pretty good support for the 30/500 restriction. Zad68 deserves a great deal of credit for coming up with the idea. I'm not sure why you feel I'm somehow involved, this user's conduct has been an on-and-off problem for a while now. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion I think your previous block makes you involved if I am reading the guideline correctly only because this is a different area. I agree with the 500/30 rule as I said on the AE board but ForbiddenRocky and PtF are SPA's created during and after ARbCom. It's WP:DUCK. If the rule were 500 non-GamerGate edits, they would have nothing to edit. PtF seems to have only made reverts. If FDJK001 needs blocked, you may want to wait until other admins that haven't blocked him weigh in. The answer won't be different than yours and I suspect it will happen. There won't be an exception and I certainly didn't advocate one--DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I blocked them because their username was - I kid you not - User:Uraswhole . I unblocked them when they produced a well-composed statement of regret , but it's not been smooth since then. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Aah. That's a bit trivial to be involved. redacting. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem, it's so easy to see shadows everywhere with all that's going on these days. In any case I'm not planning on blocking them for not listening to me, I've gotten used to that. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Aand now they're trying the old 500-trivial-edits thing. Jeez. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

I value your input at talk:Gamergate controversy but your comment at 04:38 today looks inappropriate, because you're arguing the issues rather than the editing. In particular, your reference to Montreal security is quite tasteless in the context and has absolutely no bearing on how we edit this article. --TS 14:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your defense of me is appreciated. MONGO 01:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You violated the 1RR at Gamergate

Hi DHeyward, you violated the 1RR at Gamergate: . Nobody cared enough to even complain about it in an edit summary much less warn you, take you to 3RRNB, or AE, and I see you stopped reverting and took it to Talk, so no action, but 1RR is still in effect there. Zad68 01:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 I don't think this is correct as I made an edit based on followed by 1 revert. The second revert would be a violation which didn't happen. The edit is based on the reasoning below. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

...Also, noticing Tony's comment in the section title WP:FORUM above, regarding a comment of yours with timestamp 4:38. I do see this one with a timestamp 00:30, 19 June 2015 where you appear to be doing your own detective work instead of summarizing sources, I warned you about doing this sort of thing earlier here. You appear to have some legal or maybe forensic training, which is great, but we need to be editors and not detectives. Zad68 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 Using inductive reasoning is part of sourcing and is specifically not FORUM. It is available from very reliable sources that Sarkeesian received 3 threats in Utah. The first threat, on a Monday, was the shooting threat and did not mention GamerGate and was the only shooting threat she ever received (the FBI treated it separately, as well). The second threat was not specific and mentioned gamergate (but not shooting). The third threat was also not specific but did not mention GamerGate. That is not FORUM to point out the WP:Inaccuracy problem of saying that GamerGate supporters threatened the largest mass shooting since Montreal when the shooting threat was not made with any reference to Gamergate (indeed, Sarkeesian herself tweeted she received three threats, only one of them mentioning GamerGate - she was especially troubled by the shooting threat but that was not from GamerGate). As the sources stated Sarkeesian received threats long before GamerGate, largely related to anti-feminism, and they fit the previous pattern. I hope you can see the difference between inductive reasoning based on sources that were provided and an accusation of WP:FORUM simply because I disagree with an inaccurate lumping made by an inaccurate source. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's the source . After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate. and Sarkeesian said the threats were specific, with one claiming, "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." and and finally The most detailed threat, which has prompted an FBI investigation, does not identify as a GamerGate action but rather a USU student attacking feminism. Only one threat was shooting. It was on Monday. Only one threat was GamerGate. It was on Tuesday. the Venn diagram does not overlap. That's not FORUM, it's inductive reasoning perfectly allowed and accepted and sourced. Gamaliel should review as well since he is accusing me of FORUM as well as 1RR both of which are incorrect in this instance. --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify

What does your last sentence here mean? Woodroar (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't see diff. Somebody must have made BLP violation and deleted that rev. --DHeyward (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It was your comment that was redacted. I think it was interpreted as a reference to an early video about GG. I think it was just coincide you choose that number though. Strongjam (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The 5 horseman? Isn't that the term used to describe people "protecting" the article? I've seen TRPOD and MB use quite often. --DHeyward (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll email so that I can avoid being coy. Strongjam (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I got email from Gamaliel too and I just saw. Seems a big leap. --DHeyward (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Review Draft Article

Hi DHeyward, I have a small request, if you have a spare few minutes. In response to the challenge set on Jimbo's Talk page, I undertook to create a draft Article on Bonnie Ross, Head of 343 Industries, a notable woman in the video games industry. I have completed a rough draft, and am now seeking advice from experienced Wikipedians on potential improvements. It is only short at this stage, and will not be the best Misplaced Pages article, but neither do I think it the worst. If you have time, could you please look it over here. Any advice is greatly appreciated. - Ryk72 01:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure but she's one of about 20. I brought them up at Arbcom and the talk page. google "influential women in gaming" and look at the results from forbes and other magazines and it's not Sarkeesian, Wu or Quinn. The "rape and death threats driving women from software" meme is just made up nonsense. Women face hurdles in tech but it's not the hurdles they experienced in high school as some would like to portray it. Some of that perception appears to be driven by angst from their own past as outlined by Arthur Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi DHeyward, Thanks for the review & feedback. And especially for the Google suggestion. I have been able to find a few more sources which will help build the Bonnie Ross article; and to find a whole list of new articles to create or improve. If the influential women in the two Fortune lists I was able to find do not yet have articles then there is a lot we can do to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers. - Ryk72 04:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I have started an arbitration enforcement request here. Woodroar (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For remaining civil. Vordrak (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)