User talk:DHeyward

• /Archive1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive3 Created September 30, 2006
• /Archive4 Created November 19, 2006
• [[1]] Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Friday

8

November

07:01 UTC

Please add comments to the bottom.

SoD Arbitration

Sorry but asking MONGO not tell tell people to "Fuck off" in an edit summary is an unfounded warning? Does WP:CIV actually apply here or has it been removed without my knowedge? If you had read the rest of the thread ([2]) You would have seen I actually didnt seen any of the insults to MONGO until he mentioned them. I noticed the "fuck off" edit summary because his page is watchlisted and has been for well over 6 months. When MONGO pointed out the first insult, I checked the talk page of the IP to see it had recieved an appropriate warning (which it had - a 4th level civility warning if I am not mistaken) and checked their contributions to make sure they had not been incivil since the edit warning (which they hadn't). I fail to see how I am doing anything more thanappropriately warning another editor to abide by WP:CIV. The warning would have gone to both parties, had I seen the insult from the IP at an appropriate time. Viridae^Talk 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was entirely inappropriate for you to fish his talk page for transgressions after having a confrontation on an arbitration case. Whether MONGO was right or wrong is completely immaterial and it simply looks like you are either baiting him or looking for a reason to sanction him. There are over a thousand admins. Surely one who hadn't been involved in the arbcom case could have handled an edit summary on his talk page. Preferably in a less confrontational way such as email. --DHeyward 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not a case of fishing, I have had his talk page on my watch list for ages (one of approximately 200 user pages on my watchlist actually), It just happened that I looked at my watchlist and saw the inappropriate edit at the top. It was a simple case of warning someone for something that was undoubtedly uncivil. It only is an issue for MONGO if he continues to behave in the manner that got him warned (which he hasn't) or if he thinks I am stalking him (which he probobly does). I see no point in offloading a simple civility warning on another admin, and I don't see why a simple matter such as being told off for being uncivil should be taken to email. I would have done the same thing had it been you telling someone to fuck off, Jimbo telling someone to fuck off or someone I have a great respect for like New York Brad. I have no different standards between different editors. Anyone that is uncivil to that degree will always be told off should I see it. Had I seen the IPs insult first I would have warned them too. As long as MONGO abides by it (and he hasn't been uncivil since) then that paticular matter will be closed. I don't really care that he has removed the conversation from his talk page, he saw it and he hasn't behaved inappropriately since (to my knowledge, havent looked at his contributions and don't plan to). Viridae^Talk 06:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a question of motive, it is a question of judgement. If you don't understand why it might be inflammatory or unnecessarily confrontational to argue with someone in an arbitration case and then warn them over incivility on an entirely unrelated matter, it is even more important that a neutral body such as arbcom or a clerk ask you not to do it. This is what it means to be an "involved admin." --DHeyward 06:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a simple matter, don't swear at people in edit summaries. It was a simple request (don't sw...). It has a simple resolution... I fail to see why this is being dragged out further than what is necessary. In that situation I was completely uninvolved and acted in an impartial manner. MONGO shouldnt have been uncivil (and knows it) and consequently got warned for it. If it came to a block, then I would deferred that decision to someone else. However it was a simple warning... Viridae^Talk 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a trivial matter as well. Probably been best to let sleeping dogs lie. No one complained about the edit summary as far as I can tell. I think you have misinterpreted his reaction. Disbelief that you warned him over his edit summary (so he pointed you to the offending one) followed by anger after you continued to defend it with the final deletion being a rather abrupt dismissal of the whole affair. Since the desired outcome of a warning should be education or contrition (followed by punishment if necessary), the warning utterly failed. It is fairly easy to foresee that any warning that you could offer to MONGO would have failed in this way. It is also easy to see that a future warning on practically any topic would be just as fruitless. It has nothing to do with legitimacy of the warning. --DHeyward 07:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I continued to defend it because that behaviour was entirely inappropriate. However it was quite correct to point out why he had reacted that way in the first place. Viridae^Talk 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming discussion - blogs

You might want to be careful there -- you're dealing with an admin who tried to pass off his own blog as an RS and nearly won. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mess

What a mess...everyone thinks I am incivil...what the hell am I suppose do do? I mean, I got one guy screaming block all the time, another complaining constantly about me lying, another barking about how he isn't an ED contributor, when he just made an edit there only last week! Does this look like hounding to you? Seems they all are trying to make up reasons to get me blocked...and facts are, many of them seem to have no desire to make mainspace contributions...I have yet to see several of them make one researched and cited post in a long time. I got an admin who has been in a dispute with me threatening to block me and he just protected the NPA policy on a verison he has argued in favor of on the talkpage at that policy...does no one else but you see the admin abuse here? Is this place going to the down the toilet or what?--MONGO 07:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this would end rather abruptly when Jimbo blocked Ombudsman for restoring links to an attack site. Viridae is on a course to be desysopped. I'm thinking JzG is doing it right. Head down and just fixing it. He doesn't antagonize but when a troll decides to challenge him with reverts or attacks, there are a number of admins, including Jimbo, very quick with blocks and warnings so JzG can continue unimpeded. --DHeyward 07:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that one. Viridae^Talk 07:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's your arrogance (on display here again with that last comment) that guarantees it. I sincerely hope you mature enough to use the tools appropriately for the good of the project. --DHeyward 07:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I already am, which is why I feel you have no grounds whatsoever for desysopping. I protected a policy page because of massive edit warring - no misuse of tools. I have wanrred monogo for civility - inceident like telling people to "fuck off" once again - no misuse. Find an actual reason to threaten with desysopping and I will discuss my behaviour with you. But frankly, just because you and MONGO don't like being told off by an increasingly large segment of the community, doesn't mean 1 the community members are wrong and 2 any admin who is enforcing the policies like no edit warring or civility is wrong. If you have a problem with my use of the admin tools I am happy to discuss it with you in a reasonable manner - but frankly mongo got off lightly out of this. Had I seen the massive flaunting of 3RR, he would have been blocked. Had i not got to the page protection before the report on WP:AN/3RR was filed he probobly would have been blocked by someone else. I will not put up with that kind of edit warring and I don't care who is doing it. The same goes for civility and no personal attacks, both of which are more of a threat to the environment of the encyclopedia than any random vandal. Viridae^Talk 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with the way you encouraged Miltopia to continue to troll and make personal attacks on WT:NPA, and smacked me down on ANI for complaining about him, telling me to follow my own advice. WTF is that supposed to mean? Care to explain yourself there? - Crockspot 12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never encouraged anyone to troll. Relevant thread please? Viridae^Talk 12:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Related to the last active message posted to your talk page (by me), and the thread on ANI that you archived AS MILTOPIA WAS ATTACKING ME THERE, which you just blew off. Please tell me how that 1) shows good judgement, 2) shows courtesy to a user making a good faith complaint, and 3) encourages good behavior in general. I think you owe me an apology, and you owe Miltopia a warning. He took your remarks as a license to be a further dick, and you just stood by and allowed it to happen. Not very impressive admin behavior. - Crockspot 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That simply was not an administrative problem - you disagreed with the thread's content and removed it, miltopia didn't agree and reverted it. Had it gone one much longer than that it would have become an administrative problem, but because I had not seen any attempt to resolve the situation past the ANI report so I told you to take your own advice (which I believe amounted to taking it to a relevant talk page - I think I read it in the thread in question). I could not see any point in continuing the ANI thread - you had characterised his reversion as vandalism (not good) and he had been somewhat incivil. It appeared that it was going to get nowhere and probobly inflame matters. It was not a licence to miltopia to be disruptive, nor was it for you. It was simply a decision to attempt to quell the slanging match I forsaw coming because at that point it required no administrator intervention. As It says that the top of the page, that page is not part of the dispute resolution process. However there is dozens of posts a week that do not require admin intervention because they simply complain about something without having properly attempted to solve the situation themself. Don't get me wrong, I do see why you took it there, but I don't think that was the best place to start. My apologies if I was brusque, I was simply trying to nip the slanging match in the bud. Viridae^Talk 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think repeatedly reverting the removal of a thread (from a policy talk page) that has no other purpose than to attack a wp editor is not vandalism, is a content dispute, and is not an administrative issue, then I have to question further your ability to judge such situations. I have yet to ever have a report of mine to WP:AIV rejected, and not result in the immediate block of the user I was reporting. I think my ability to identify vandalism, and my reputation for proper reporting of such cases, is beyond reproach, except perhaps by you. Your archiving of the thread as I was being attacked there, and accused of "forum shopping" (what other forum did I "shop"?), trolling, and flame baiting, without even a word of caution to that user, shows that you are either biased against me for some personal reason, or you lack the judgment required to be entrusted with admin tools. - Crockspot 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I considered that thread tangently related to the issue at hand because it had to do with MONGO's behaviour on the page. Hence you two could sort it out amongst yourself. You should remember I also didn't giv a word of caution to you either for characterising the reinstatement of a talk page thread as vandalism. As I explained above, it was going to achieve nothing at that point so you could go and talk it over with miltopia. It simply had not reached a level that required admin involvement and I could see the dispute getting worse rapidly. Viridae^Talk 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that many people consider me to be a MONGO minion, but it might surprise you to know that I was only vaguely aware of another discussion (which I did not participate in at all), and was unaware that it was still active. My concern was with an entire thread on a policy talk page that was dedicated to slamming an established editor. It does not matter to me who that editor being slammed was. And yes, the situation with Miltopia was escalating rapidly, and I have had difficulty dealing with him in the past. That is why I brought it to ANI. Your smacking down of me, allowing Miltopia to continue his attack on ANI, and then your archiving of the thread did absolutely nothing to de-escalate, and in fact, only further escalated the level of frustration and anger on my part. Great work. I hope you have better answers for this situation when and if it ever comes up before arbcom. - Crockspot 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just hope you learn to act more appropriately especially with the admin tools. Blocking or threatening to blcok people you are involved with is simply inappropriate. Even your decision to troll my talk page is very suspect. --DHeyward 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, is Viridae wikistalking my edits or what? This is getting really tiresome.--MONGO 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mongo I am wikistalking you. It wouldnt be that the very first post on this page happens to be one of mine and I might have had the page on my watchlist because of that? Viridae^Talk 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking or threatening to block someone you are directly involved in a dispute with is. That was nothing to do with the previous dispute, it was a simple matter of 3RR. Viridae^Talk 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are involved in a dispute with MONGO. There is no circumstance where you should block or threaten to block him. there are no exceptions for "simple 3RR" or just "civility warnings" or "obvious personal attacks". This is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I believe you have more than an appearance problem however as it has come to my attention that you are a prolific contributor to a website that is at the heart of of the WP:NPA page that you protected on a version disputed by MONGO. That is a very real abuse of using admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. --DHeyward 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you are wrong. I am not currently in a dipute with mongo - I have warned him a couple of times for civility, something he greatly dislikes but which has been supported by other people as completely justified. As such, I have free reign of my admin tools to block or warn as I feel is necessary and as prescibed by the relevant policies - and that includes but is not limited to 3rr, civility and personal attacks UNLESS those offences were directly related to the dispute I was in - which amounted to mongo not liking to be told off for personal attacks. If that kind of edit warring persists then he will be blocked. However he has said he will limit his reverts. The same applies to every single other contributor on this website - if they edit war to that extent they get blocked. Mongo should count himself lucky that he isnt blocked and the page was protected instead - because if I had realised how much 3rr had been flounted, that would have been the course of action I would have taken instead of the page protection. It just happens i noticed the edit warring when I did - looked at all the reverts in the history and protected it. It was always going to be the wrong version for one of the parties in the dispute, and frankly I really dont give a hoot who that is as long as the warring stops and talking starts. You have also accused me of using the admin tools to gain advantage of a dispute I was not actually in - yes I have participated in the discussion in the past but I had not to any significant degree for a while, and being a contributor to another website does not make me involved in that paticular dispute. Frankly DHeyward, I am sick of arguing with you - you can scream administrator abuse all you like at the top of your voice and it isn't going to convince any reasonable person that protecting that page was the wrong course of action given the raging edit war. I have no doubt you won't change your tune so here is my final words on this matter for you to stew about: I will issue blocks at my own disgression to anyone who warrants them as long as I am not directly involved in a dispute with them at the time UNLESS the block is to do with a clearly different matter which in my opinion is undeniable cause for a block. I also don't consider myself in a dispute with anyone who screams administrator abuse because they have been told to play nicely, and screaming admin abuse will never ever give me any reason to reverse my action. If you think it is unjust you are welcome to approach my calmly and sensibly and explain why. Escalating situations and calling names or screaming abuse will not solve anything. I will also use my administrator tools evenly for every single person on this site who is either obviously good faith or hasn't shown to be bad faith, regardless of whether they have been here 3 months or 3 years. As long as I am confident they know the applicable policies they will be treated as such and blocks performed will be the same for everyone. There are no allowance for the number of featured articles you have written or the number of vandals you have reported - I don't care what you editing history is as long as it is unrelated to the situation at hand. That is my final word. Should you wish to speak to me further about this, feel free to contact me in a civil manner via my talk page. Otherwise goodbye. Viridae^Talk 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand why the "involved admin" policy is in place. It's not in place to expand admin use of the tools by narrowing what is a conflict or what "involved" means. In fact, quite the opposite. It is in place to stop disputes from escalating through the asymmetric use of Wikipedia resources. MONGO obviously believes he has a dispute with you. Being an admin, you should recognize that the preception of neutrality is the test of whether your use of the tools is justified, not your own narrow definition of what "involved" is. Even if you are neutral and believe it in your heart, you should realize that MONGO would not and therefore you should exclude yourself from action. The goal of using all the admin tools is to de-escalate conflict, not create it or make it grow. The goals of all the policies is to reduce conflict. Your failure to understand this is why you are failing in your role as admin. You need to rethink how you are applying the tools. You need to rethink how your participation in other sites affects the level of conflict at Wikipedia. And finally you need to rethink how other editors are interpreting your actions. As for you being "tired", I am not sure why you came to my talk page except to argue or troll for a response. Even that shows a certain lack of experience/maturity/wisdom. You may want to consider doing more basic admin tasks such as blocking simple vandals, closing AfD debates or deleting copyrighted images but I think you are particularly unsuited for handling disputes that arise in the noticeboard or on policy pages with your current skillset. --DHeyward 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia

• On a brighter note, Miltopia sleeps with the fishes. - Crockspot 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! --DHeyward 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Linley page

The link that you re-inserted is still a 404 - and I have checked this with several proxy servers just to make sure they haven't applied a block to UK ISPs. I don't actually understand why you are so attached to what an Adelaide newspaper has to say about events at the other side of the world anyway. The simple statement "None of the blackmailers' claims have been proven" is a far better and more concise way of putting it anyway (this was someone else's edit btw), without having Wikipedia taking sides in what are now active criminal proceedings. What's your point? --Archstanton 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I added sources?

I don't understand I added a source to the text about Clarence Thomas bio? And same with Antonin Scalia bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.15.241 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They are 1) undue weight, 2) don't reach the same conclusions you do 3) imply wrongdoing that is not supported by the source. That makes them a BLP no-no. It's probably okay to mention Gore requested a recusal if in fact they did such a thing officially. It's not okay to state as fact that they had a COI since that is not supported. --DHeyward 05:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 1) How so, are you saying it's untrue that: In 1994, Virginia Lamp Thomas wife to Clarence Thomas worked for Representative Dick Armey, as a policy analyst. Conflict of interest issues were also raised in 2000, when Virginia Lamp Thomas worked for the Heritage Foundation, collecting résumés for potential presidential appointments in the George W. Bush Administration. Virginia Lamp Thomas later served as White House liaison to the Heritage Foundation.

Regarding 2) the source talks about COI, I will correct the text so it is ok in every way.

Regardig 3) COI is clearly implied here, by the source. I'm going to update the source since www.nytimes.com open up their archive YaY.

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:30, 11/4/2007

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

At last

Someone understands: [3]. ;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Spirited disagreement is fine, but edit summaries like this are not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I was quoting Raul. --DHeyward (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1RR on GW

You broke this; I've blocked you. Also please be civil in edit summaries William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock DHeyward. 1RR is not enforceable if it is not from ArbCom, so says Tariqabjotu. If you don't feel the same, then perhaps you ought to block Raul654. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The 1RR has community sanction and is enforceable. I've just enforced it, so it must be. Raul: see the RFC. DH: can be unblocked under the usual rules for 3RR: viz, promising not to do it again William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 1RR. My first edit was a new edit that removed the two conentious words ("some" and "few". My first, only and last revert was when it was reintroduced. First new edit [4]. First revert [5]. 3RR is enforceable on the 4th revert. 1RR is enforceable on the 2nd. I never made a 2nd revert. My edit summary was profane and not incivil and I was already warned for that above so a block is punitive. . --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That first edit can be considered a partial-rv, as it undid what the editor did prior to your edit. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my understanding. I didn't undo what one editor did, I removed what a bucnh of editors were fighting over. There is no version that I reverted to as no one had removed both words ("some" and "few"). I was trying to end the dumbest edit war in history yet POV warriors continue to try to keep it alive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to risk fighting a revert war, you ought to know the rules. Reverts do not have to restore the article text fully to count; just restoring one word counts, particularly if (as in this case) that is the word that is being fought over. Also, note that you failed to mark your second edit as a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you're wrong - we had a version with neither "some" or "few" [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know what you're saying. But if you change what someone else did prior to your edit (it doesn't even have to be undoing), it can be considered a partial revert. But I think if we can agree to talk about this sensibly and agree not to edit war we can perhaps hash out this truly dumb dispute, and hopefully you will be unblocked. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit war. I try to end them. I'm sorry I wasn't aware of a single version from two weeks ago that had heither "few" nor "some". I did not revert to that version either. WC, in the future, I would appreciate it if you didn't use your admin tools in content disputes that you are part of. Especially enforcing revert dictums that you are actively a part of and engaging in. You were clearly wrong in this case. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That said, the edit summary was vastly uncivil. Please tone down the language. I was in two minds as to whether unblock you completely, or shorten it appropriately, but because this appears to be an isolated incident, I just went ahead and unblocked completely. Viridae^Talk 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Electrolaser

• See Talk:Electrolaser#Is a second conductor needed for current return?. Anthony Appleyard 10:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Irene Hirano

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Irene Hirano, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. How does Irene Hirano meet the notability guideline? I've placed a merge tag in the article. If you remove that without an explanation like you did the prod, I may bring the article to AfD. —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

She's on the board for the Ford foundation, the CEO of the museum in LA and now engaged to a powerful senator. She is notable, not famous. Google her and you will see. --DHeyward (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Irene Hirano

I have nominated Irene Hirano, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Hirano. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Enigma ^msg! 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Page moves and AN/I reports

Just FYI. A move you made was brought here for discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 13:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

trolling is right

No kidding about this being trolling...he's about as off kilter as anyone I have ever met on this website. I don't think I have seen anyone get it wrong so many times yet think he has it right...totally clueless.--MONGO 05:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, he has a long and colorful history. I'm surprised he's still here. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Colorful is one way to put it...he is a former ED editor and was riled when Rootology was being banned and as far as I am concerned, his actions on that case and his ongoing miscues about me are tiresome. His recent bullshit at the 9/11 CT arbcom case is a load of crap as well.--MONGO 16:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He was falafel's buddy on the Protest Warrior page too. He made this long rant at ANI about an edit he said I made but it was simply him being unable to read the diff log. --DHeyward (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you see this ridiculousness?...how can we expect a guy like that to NOT be here to POV push 9/11 CT stuff. Also, you are aware Travb used an IP and at least one sock account to perform page move vanadalism on the State terrorism by the U.S. article as well...yet he calls me orwellian!--MONGO 04:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

fyi

Stone put to sky is at ANI for his misbehavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#User:Stone_put_to_sky_continues_to_make_personal_attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.187.94 (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Your account now has rollback privileges. Please only use the tool to revert simple vandalism or test edits, or the right will be removed accordingly. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 22:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Hi D, I'm not sure I'm getting your tone right when reading your comments. Are you suggesting that I have misunderstood the significance of Thornton's comments here or that I am deliberately trying to mislead the rest of you?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood the significance, context and relevance of the comments. --DHeyward (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See you back on the talk page.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An interesting link

[7] It's an oldie, but I think you might understand its significance. Risker (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk

Hi D, I just noticed this remark you made about me. I hope I can convince you that it is not true. I was not trying to get a rise out of MONGO (though, because of our history, I did think long and hard before posting to his page.) And I was certainly not trying to get you to say something incivil. I really am here in good faith. If I ever give you reason to think otherwise, please take it to ANI as I took MONGO's actions there. I believe that ArbCom's rememedy, if enforced, will work.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Int J Fracture

I took a closer look at the International Journal of Fracture (where Cherepanov's paper was published). I haven't been able to find anything to suggest its a "pay for play" journal, nor anything to make it seem disreputable. If you can see something I can't, please let us know [8].--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scarborough article

What is your source for the idea that this was a pro bono case assigned to Scarborough? This is not what is implied in the article. It states that he "wished" to defend this man. An admin has said this is not a BLP violation and 2 other users have agreed. This does add relevant information to the bio in that it reflects Scarborough's political ideology - an important aspect of a former politician and current political commentator. Whether it is flattering or pejorative is not the point and not the purpose of the article. Whether the concensus finds it true is what will drive its inclusion here. You are invited to join in the discussion but I ask you to not to unilaterally revert this edit. I will report continued reversions as vandalism. Thanks for the reminder to include same reference in Griffin' bio - good point. I am happy to see that you believe the reference is valid there, even if pejorative. Kek15 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also responded to some of your comments on the BLP Noticeboard. I think we don't agree on this. Kek15 (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Scarborough's aide -- the difficulty is that the reference is buried in the title of a cited source -- so the user who clicks the link has no idea what the connection is. It needs to be re-added just for clarity. --Kayobee (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. She is not relevant to the paragraph. This was discussed when her article was AFD'd. Please don't re-add it when it has already been a decided issue. --DHeyward (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rfa

I'm not sure what you are saying in Bigtimepeace's Rfa. Are you saying Giovanni33 is supporting him because he has to? SunCreator (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Bigtimepeace has stood up for G33 a number of times basically because they share a similar POV as far as I can tell. I don't think he 'has' to support him but rather G33 would have a friend with the tools. --DHeyward (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the large number of editors that support him that are basically not involved in the narrow SPA window that G33 edits in makes me rethink my vote. I am reviewing some rather old stuff and I see that BTP has done a lot of community work so I may change it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. :) SunCreator (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of John Burt

A tag has been placed on John Burt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ziggy Sawdust 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi DHeyward, I noticed you had previously switched over to neutral on my RfA with the comment "Pending answer to question I am posing." I had assumed you were going to post a question in the questions section, but just wanted to make sure that you were not referring to your expressed concern that I am POV warrior who would use the tools inappropriately (i.e. that you wanted me to respond to that concern). No pressure or anything (you can keep your vote as is or switch back to oppose or whatever you like obviously), but I am happy to answer any questions you might have if that would aid in your decision. If not, no worries.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just haven't formulated the question yet. Still thinking. --DHeyward (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and feel free to ask a couple if that helps.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Burt

I have nominated John Burt, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Burt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ziggy Sawdust 19:57, 21 April 2008

John Burt/Michael Griffin

The John Burt article looks good. I am suggesting that there should be a reference to this article in the Michael Griffin article; Griffin is referenced in the Burt article. Kek15 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango AC

Hi D, I'll try it again (I think any more back and forth at AC will just make things worse). Before the article talk page discussion started, I invited MONGO to participate in it. If he thought my inivitation was trolling, he could have removed it as such and not participated in the discussion and the poll. But he participated in the poll and removed my invitation as trolling. Now, he could of course have been reacting to my ANI report by calling me an SPA troller, but that would only underscore my point, i.e., that he meant it as an insult. Anyway, it's been an experience ... Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah they are, hence.... Anyway, good job. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for commenting in my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. You and I have rarely seen eye to eye here on Wikipedia, and I know you have concerns about me as an administrator, but I certainly invite you to keep an eye on my work and bring any problems you see to my attention. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

G33

Re the workshop page. I agree. I haven't added my support there explicitly because I doubt it will do any good - I think mostly arbcomm are expected to comment there. But let me know if you think I can usefully "publicly" support you there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Usually they just read it and file it somewhere. I don't think support matters so much as critical questions. When others question the reasons or concepts that I am trying to get across, it can usually show where I wasn't clear and I get an opportunity to clarify. The hardest part is conveying the complete train of thought. So bascially the best support would be to tell me where a particular argument or remedy is open for interpretation or comes across as improper. --DHeyward (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of SPA

Hello, perhaps you were not fully aware of G33's edit history when you wrote your proposed finding of fact "Giovanni33 is a SPA account-2) User:Giovanni33 is a SPA account for editing articles critical of the United States..." Perhaps given the evidence to the contrary you would like to change your position on the matter and withdraw it. Or else provide your definition of 'SPA' so that we would know how it is that you feel the term could be applied in good faith to G33.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Show us in a sandbox?

Per your comment here, would you be willing to draft in a sandbox an example of a proposed article that would begin to meet your requirements as outlined in your post? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange insinuation

I'm not sure what you mean by "But if I calimed I helped write it, you'd probably probably ask me to step aside due to COI." I don't actually see any edits by you to WP:EP. Are you pulling rank or something? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I don't believe I've accused you or anyone recently of WP:COI. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else, but I'd prefer it if you stuck the remark. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Notification

As one of the people who do not like me, I promised to invite two that do and two that do not, I am informing you of my appeal: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSevenOfDiamonds. Your comments, negative or positive are welcome. - I Write Stuff / SevenOfDiamonds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.96.154 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni nonsense

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The problem I see is that you are edit-warring by reverting many times without any discussion on the talk page about your dispute. Since I didn't see any good reason you provided for removing the information, I reverted you. But, you have also violated 3RR, so I have made a report about that. If your revert was valid as you claim then I'm sure you could have discussed it on the talk page and allowed another editor to revert for you, instead of violating the 3 revert rule.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wikistalking me and supporting those that are harassing me. --DHeyward (talk)

Assume good faith and stop with your nonsense accusations. As far as wikistalking goes, I believe that is what you regularly do to me! A case of projection?Giovanni33 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you care to point out where you think I've wikistalked you, I'll certainly take heed but I think you are mistaken. And the oversights on my talk page and the scarborough page are testaments to the harassment and you are simply supporting it with this nonsense. --DHeyward (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should know. You often appear at new articles you've never been to before right after I show up, and revert me. I've never wiki-stalked you. This is the first article I encountered where you were editing and I wasn't. Here are a couple of the most recent of yours: [9] [10] Notice after you did that I didn't go cryinig 'wiki-stalking." You regularly made bad faith accusations against me. As far as oversights, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't even know what oversights are. You might have something on your talk page, but since this is a content dispute about the article, it belongs on the talk page. If I saw you were discussing the issue on the page page, I would not have reverted you. After I asked for discussion to talk page, you ignored that and continued to edit-war. That is not proper.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've edited both those articles before and, as I recall, have even put the image back that you removed on the new anti-semitism page. Redirecting a talk page rant to a User page is standard practice for banned editors. That content dispute was discussed over a month agao when the IP edited as Kek15. I was involved in that content discussion yet your comments are strtangely lacking yet you injected yourself there. As I see it, you saw an opportunity to try and generate a 3RR report even after I explained it to you. Oversight is when edits are deleted and removed from the database. Not even admins see oversighted edits. The fact that you have no idea what has happened there and yet you injected yourself in order to fulfill some personal vendetta is somewhat disturbing. --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not true and bad faith again, as is common with you. You did not explain anything to me. You reverted first. That was a mistake. If you had explained to to me, and if you were correct, I would have reverted myself. 3RR is an electronic fence you are not supposed to go over. Your edit warring by yourself does not show you have consensus. I still do not understand what you're talking about. The abortion and capital case issue that you were edit-warring about has nothing to do with any privacy issue or oversight. I'm not interested in related drama you might have engaged in on this article. I'm referring to this specific content dispute and the manner in which you have conducted yourself on the article to resolve it, which is problematic.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination)

Please stop removing other editors comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination). If you want to have a more freewheeling discussion on the talk page, consider replying to another's comments by starting a talk page discussion and noting you've replied on talk page on the main discussion page. This is a consensus process, not a vote, and contributors are allowed to reply to your comments as part of that process. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)