User talk:DHeyward

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

Say it isn't so[edit]

Please reconsider. -- ψλ 14:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived[edit]

The recent Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration amendment request has been closed and archived at the direction of the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower/Gilmore[edit]

I think you may be wrong about Cyberpower's comment that you removed from the talk page of Darkness Shines. I've not followed all of the ins and outs but I thought Cyberpower said what they did on DS's page several hours before CWGilmore asked everyone to stop pinging etc? It's tricky because CWG has mass-cleared their own talk page on a couple of recent occasions but it looked to me as if they were actually referencing that ping when they may the comment. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I'm not sure about the timing or even if it matters. It's just not a good idea to summon the IBAN editor to a thread on his adversary's talk page. The thread was about one of them being unblocked, while the other is blocked which makes it worse. I was against DS's block and haven't looked at Gilmore's block but to me, summoning Gilmore to DS's page was a bit patronising and against all the advice to leave each other alone. I can't imagine that it helped the situation in any way and it's obvious Gilmore is upset about it. I would have been upset to be pinged that way. --DHeyward (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm is a ping a summons? The message specifically said do not respond there. That Gilmore subsequently became upset is just one of those things. I still think what you did was an over-reaction, as was CWG's flounce, but I'll leave that for Cyberpower to deal with now. The only reason I didn't post at CWG's talk was because I've never interacted with them and have no idea whether they have any redeeming qualities or not, whilst I do have some historic knowledge of DS. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wayne LaPierre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talkcontribs)

Wikistalking me to revert my edit that removed unsourced material? Nice. There is no doubt where he stands on gun rights. He has very little coverage on other positions that would be needed to define "conservative." Abortion, taxes, military spending and policy, foreign policy, immigration, etc, etc. Find a source that attributes anything more than gun rights is really needed since he supports many politicians and citizens. He has both Republican and Democratic supporters. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Blue Lives Matter[edit]

Just so you're aware, based on the IP's now-suppressed absolutely disgusting talk page post, they're a block-evader targeting VM's edits. --NeilN talk to me 03:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't see that. There's no need for stuff like that. I think VM thought it was me making the article edits based on his article talk page comments but it's understandable that he would be frustrated if he was being harassed on his talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this?[edit]

What is this? Where does it say that in the source? Your edit has been removed. Does that idea come from some other source? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I presume you're appalled by the extraneous apostrophe? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
It must be the apostrophe. I hate that. But yet yes, most sources had said both memos were released to the full House. Only the republican memo was released to Trump. What did you find odd? --DHeyward (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── DHeyward and William M. Connolley, the sarcasm is unnecessary. I hadn't even noticed the apostrophe! I note that at the current time, the disputed wording hasn't been restored:

  • "Both memo's were released to the full house with the Republican memo released along party lines while the Democrat memo was released with a unanimous vote."

On the face of it (from that source), that looked like fiction, and I figured there had to be a good explanation.

I just happened by that article at the time Volunteer Marek had deleted those words, with the edit summary "source doesn't actually say this". In fact, it showed that the GOP was preventing release of the Dem memo. That's why I came here to give you a chance to explain what was going on: "Does that idea come from some other source?" If it does, then you should be able to restore those words using a source which does say it.

On the face of it, it looked like fiction, but I couldn't believe you'd do that, so I AGF that there was likely another explanation. (Maybe neither VM nor myself were noticing it, even though it was in the source.) As it stood at the time, it appeared you either wrote fiction contrary to fact, or did some OR by adding something you knew from other sources, a much more innocent explanation. I assumed the latter. I'm not sure of the actual explanation, but you're welcome to fix that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to re-read what it says. Both memo's were released to the full House (not the Senate). Only the Nunes memo was sent to Trump. The votes to release to Trump were along party lines. The votes to release to the full House were unanimous for the Schiff memo, and party lines for the Nunes memo. None has been released publicly. Suffice to say, all members of the House have seen both memos. It is obvious that the Schiff memo required Republican votes to get relesed to the House. Only those with SCI clearance can see the raw intelligence supporting each of those memos. See WP:COMPETENCE if this is unclear as to how politics work. --DHeyward (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Good. Then maybe the content should be restored, with some tweaks. Here's a try:
  • Both memos were released to the full house, with the Republican memo released along party lines, while the Democratic memo was released with a unanimous vote. Only the Republican memo was voted for public release, but Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) thought the "Democratic memo 'should be' released after House members have time to review it".
Forget that version. The problem is the confusion between release to the full house and release to the public. There is also nothing about a "unanimous vote" in that source, and the question of voting is regarding "public" release:
  • "The GOP-led panel voted along party lines to release the secret document — which was written by Republicans — and against making public a competing memo Democrats had crafted,..."
So we've got two types of voting going on, and that needs to be made clear. This needs some work, and I have to leave right now. Maybe you can come up with a better version in the mean time, because your original intent should be honored by inclusion, just with some tweaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That too much speculation. Trumps review will determine whether either are released. If Trump says "no," don't think there will be a vote in the house. We didn't have have an articles until after the fact so whatever any single rep thinks will happen opens the door for 400+ opinions. --DHeyward (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

RSN[edit]

?? Not only did I not make any personal aspersion, but I can't even figure out anything I might have said that upset you. No upset intended. If this is important to you, let me know the problem and I will try to respond. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? I'm trying to understand why the media... was complicit in whatever deception you the Bush Administration and their co-conspirators may have been trying to perpetrate[1]. What deception did you think I was perpetrating? This wasn't difficult to spot as an aspersion. Did you really need help spotting it? --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi the word "think" somehow got dropped. Should read "'m trying to understand why the media... was complicit in whatever deception you think the Bush Administration and their co-conspirators may have been trying to perpetrate." And BTW, just about nobody liked the Act itself, so that's not at issue. SPECIFICO talk 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No Child Left Behind was passed with bipartisan support then replaced after criticism with Every Student Succeeds, another bipartisan law. Do you not see the names as propaganda? It would be very poor journalism to cheer-lead the government issued name without describing the underlying components. Our articles explain what the bills are and don't simply parrot what the government called it. An editorial decision to describe what it is doesn't imply that it's "unreliable" which is what the commenter was arguing. "Every Student Succeeds" isn't less propagandist because it was Obama Administration legislation versus Bush's "No Child Left Behind." --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It's like the Environmental Protection Agency that truthfully should be called the "Bureaucracy Choking American Competitiveness". I think things need common-usage labels. You're right it's too bad the labels can be disingenuous, but like they say in Vegas, "he who makes the label rules the table." Anyway, my point was that it's not the media that makes the labels, and as an encyclopedia we really just reflect the common usage in RS citations. Otherwise, we would have the #nevertrump crowd refusing to call him POTUS. Or we'd have an article on the Puerto Rican Genocide after POTUS took the paper towels down to speed their disaster recovery. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 shutdown article[edit]

My feeling is that people are going to try to add material about the current funding gap to the article regardless of the ongoing discussion, and it's better to give them a separate section to do that rather than having them mixing it throughout the article, which will be harder to sort out later. I see this as a temporary measure until we know whether funding will be restored before work hours. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Under the article restrictions, adding anything about whatever is going on now requires consensus. Nothing should be added at all. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I respect that, that's why I asked. In any case, by the morning we'll have more information to help us decide how to cover this event. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 07:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian sock[edit]

Hi. Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that sock was you. He only repeated points you had just made, and he had no editing suggestions, so it was not a constructive post even if it hadn't been that sock. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What evidence did you have that it was a sock at all? --DHeyward (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Not wise to reveal methods and sources. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's required unless we want to pursue a restriction on you labeling IP addresses as socks with no evidence. What evidence did you have to call that IP a sock? --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

HEADS UP![edit]

We are being targeted by Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:

https://twitter.com/Lightbreather --Limpscash (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

They have been sitebanned for well over 2 years.MONGO 14:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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 that 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.

Merely a formality: it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various 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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Have your say![edit]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, DHeyward. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, DHeyward. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards[edit]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards[edit]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)