User talk:DHeyward/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

September 2014

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I know, I know: "don't template the regulars"; but your post about how it's okay to use a blog post by somebody's ex as a source was a very newbie kind of thing to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

@Orangemike: Firstly, I added no biographical content whatsoever to TRPOD's talk, I only added a reference. References to external sites are allowed on talk pages for discussion purposes regarding content. They are not allowed in the article. Secondly, Gamergate is about that blog post. Thirdly, the blog is about Zoe's ex' accusations. It's not a source for what Zoe did, rather it's source for what her ex said which started Gamergate. That is in no way a BLP violation anymore than a link to a Grand Jury indictment or a police report on a talk page is a BLP violation. It's a document about what someone else is alleging and in this case it triggered a number of events. Please understand the BLP policy before acting this way again. I don't believe any of it belongs in the article as she is not particularly notable but it is a blatant NPOV problem to characterize her as a victim of industry wide misogyny without exploring and understanding other notable and covered viewpoints about Zoe. Flip it around and imagine a woman wrote a blog about being raped that triggered backlash against the person she accused. Would we ignore the rape victims view and only cover how the alleged rapist was smeared and threatened and never mention what triggered it? Is it a BLP violatio to merely link to the blog on a talk page? I don't think so. We always would cover all sides or none and my position is to stub it instead of the very one-sided view that it is now because there is significant chance that it's wrong. With articles on living persons "It is better to have no information rather than wrong or misleading information." Whence exploring the blog in talk space is necessary to decide whether alll negative information in that article should be removed. --DHeyward (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for your thoughtful response. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Orangemike:Sorry if I seemed a bit miffed. It was TRPODs second complete revert on a talk page with an inaccurate edit summary. Hopefully, after all the hubub, these articles will all be stubbed. There's too much vitriole and a neutral, detailed version would be rather sordid for marginally notable people. --DHeyward (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That SPI

Thanks for your note. I thanked you there as well, so it's on the record. You actually had one thing right: I have some sympathy for that editor, though not enough not to block them. Allow me to explain, though I feel that it would be impossible to explain. We're obviously dealing here with a "previous editor"--whether a sock of a banned or active editor is irrelevant (for now). Either way, they are making their comments, which weren't just trolling comments, at some risk to themselves, obviously because they felt it was important. And what they were saying--well, let's say I am greatly troubled by sexism everywhere, including in our project, and this GamerGate stuff brings out the worst in some people. So, here they are, commenting away on the most visible places, and we all know that someone is going to run CU on them at some point, and then the game is, to some extent, up--even if only for a day. If they're blocked or banned, the block or ban may be lengthened. Besides, new CU evidence will be used next time for sharper identifications, sleepers may be uncovered, et cetera. It is in that sense that I kind of felt some sympathy toward them, because they were clearly making it harder on themselves to do it again--and to get their point across. On the other hand, my job is to protect the project, so I have no qualms about blocking them, and if CU is run, that's just fine with me. But it's also--and as a longtime editor you know this--kind of a game, which is why we have terms like "whack a mole". No doubt they'll be back.

Oh, for the record, no--I have no idea who this person might be. I do find myself sympathetic to a number of indef-blocked editors, who are frequently people with their heart in the right place, but they just couldn't conform enough. But I don't recognize this one, no, and in addition, that whole gaming business is completely new to me. Anyway, thanks again. Sorry for this long missive, and apologies if I sounded harsher than I should have. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies Thanks for your gracious reply. No worries. There are indef blocked and even short term blocks I sympathize (as well as the death by a thousand cuts topic bans). For my part, the GamerGate stuff is just ugly. I am not good at spotting what sites users are coming from whether it's 4chan/reddit/tumblr/wikipediocracy, etc, but it seems pot stirring is the goal - I just suck at telling whether they are stirring left or right. I'm not a gamer nor hang out at any of those sites so it's a bit overwhelming how deeply involved some editors appear to be. I'd like them to stub everything after the ex's blog post because there is simply no way to cover it all neutrally. "tropes vs. women" was way before that and deserves recognition but everything else seems like a cesspool that would be indecent to cover neutrally since everyone is only marginally notable. I am sympathetic to Sarkeesian as from what I've gathered she's been analyzing/battling sexism in gaming for years (probably tilting at windmills just as fighting male literary tropes in Harlequin romances would be a tough fight) and she is consistent. I would hate to see her reputation and work be dismissed if the people hanging on her coattails self-destruct with personal issues -- some of the contributors to those articles are acting like classic feminist tropes that Sarkeesian has outlined whether they know it or not. Poe's Law is coming to mind with some of them. --DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On trolling and procrastination

Hi. Re your post here: yes, that's pretty much it. Compare also my post here, and my latest post on User talk:BlueSalix, which on second thoughts I removed, in the hope of the whole painful business winding down sooner (didn't work, though). Incidentally, you've been here a long time. Do you happen to recollect the FT2 affair in 2008-2009? (Bishzilla [sic, yes, Bishzilla, not me] was eventually admonished for blocking FT2, lol.) I find BlueSalix's demeanour quite evocative of FT2's. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

My post was reverted by talk page stalker. Not sure why they did it but user talk page comments aren't worth reverting back. I'll presume it was a friend acting on BS's behalf and has seen it. To be honest beyond AGF, he sounds like a sock. That would be my simple explanation of the email. He probably got an email, just not to his BS account. Disclosing it makes the sock discovery a no brainer once the email originator figures out who he thought he was sending it. I don't doubt the travel but I'd bet it is location based sock more than lack of internet or "IRL" (FT2?). Logging in from the wrong place now has an IP record. To be honest they all start sounding alike with the various excuses and OCD like contributions. I don't remember FT2 but trace through editors like Okip and the various reincarnations Ikip, Travb and the like. giovanni33 used to protest innocence beyond rational thought. The two distinct types seem to be one type that exist for the lulz of drama. The other seem to have an OCD need to contribute. They feed off of the injustices that admins have wrought to both groups. Or rather, I suspect the lulz crowd herds the Aspberger editors into slaughterhouse and play with them a bit to maximize the drama. If the Aspberger groups were even slightly aware of the social construct of WP, it couldn't be done. If lulz perpetual cries of innocence were limited to a 3RR like tolerance (Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action) it would be gone too. But even bringing this up will draw harsh criticism. Most likely it will come from Special Needs advocates that believe I've cast aspersions on Asperger patients by associating them with WP editors. --DHeyward (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

MastCell stole part of my theory on Jimbo's talk page. :) --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a delicious cookie!

(for misunderstanding the reverts at first) For pushing for a neutral point of view on GamerGate. I'd rather have a neutral article than one heavily in favor of the GamerGate thing. DSA510 Pls No Hate 07:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Work done by gravity

I posted the following in the Siphon Talk page. I don't know if you'll notice it there so I'm reposting it here. I'm not sure this is an appropriate place to post it, but whether it is or not, feel free to delete it after you read it if you wish.

@DHeyward - Do you still think gravity does no work on a falling object? I think I finally figured out where you were getting that idea. It seems your idea comes from the way potential energy calculations are done. When doing potential energy calculations it is important NOT to include the work done by gravity in the work term, but rather let the work done by gravity be accounted for implicitly in the potential energy term. But it is important to realize that this is just a convention to simplify the calculations. It doesn't mean gravity is doing no work just because you don't include it in the work term. You are accounting for the work done by gravity in the potential energy term. If you included it in the work term as well as the potential energy term, you would be counting the work done by gravity twice. Here is an MIT physics homework problem calculating the work done by gravity on a falling object: http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/physics/exam-prep/work-energy-power/forces-potential-energy/8_01t_fall_2004_ic_sol_w06d3_1.pdf There is also a problem from MIT to calculate the work done by gravity on a pendulum (problem 2c): http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/physics/exam-prep/work-energy-power/forces-potential-energy/8_01_fall_1999_final.pdf and the answer is given here: http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/physics/exam-prep/work-energy-power/forces-potential-energy/8_01_fall_1999_finalsol.pdf as mgl rather than zero. Now I've cited an MIT physics instructor showing that gravity does do work on falling objects. And gravity is a force that often acts over a distance in the direction of motion, so it fits the definition of a force doing work. Can you cite a single comment from anyone, anywhere, that supports the idea that gravity does no work on falling objects? Mindbuilder (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of University of Minnesota Food Industry Center

As reviewing admin, I'm not sure how far the "educational institution" exemption from WP:CSD#A7 extends, but since you have raised it and speedies should not be controversial, I have replaced it with a PROD - formal notice below.

The article University of Minnesota Food Industry Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

individual schools and departments within a university are not generally considered notable unless there is substantial coverage in sources independent of the university itself - see, WP:UNIGUIDE, particularly the section "Faculties and academic colleges".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin

Maybe just self nominate and see how it goes. If you fail then try again in six months.--MONGO 21:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought about it. Also got a nominating admins review that he thought the ANI might go okay but that he shouldn't be the nominator. I might give that a shot. --DHeyward (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There are some tools or at least used to be that examined a contributors AFD votes and other things that would show your possible red flags. TParis or Dennis Brown or maybe Bishonen might know where those are. The talk page of every Rfa has details such as that but I don't know where the templates are at. I would nominate you but my last Rfa as well as my last two nominations were disasters and I doubt my nominating would benefit you at all. Many might vote against you just because of my nomination.--MONGO 00:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) My advice would be this. Keep churning out content; not everyone agrees, but if you know how to write encyclopedia articles (especially to GA / FA status), it proves you are able to communicate facts effectively, which is a vital skill. Get a good co-nom (look how many people have recently said "Support, Dennis nom'ed him, what can go wrong?") who is prepared to cross-examine you effectively. Make sure you've got no skeletons in your closet, ideally you'll have no blocks and no justifiable templated warnings (that PROD from an admin just above this thread is an immediate red flag) and nobody can pull up a diff of you getting cross or upset. Finally, you need to have a good idea exactly what you want to do with the tools, and show strong evidence you've been working in that area - eg: if you want to close AfDs, you must have participated ideally in several hundred with your !vote matching the closing rationale around at least 85 - 90% of the time, and preferably with a bunch of non-admin closures that are within policy and unchallenged. Have a look at Dennis' RfA page and see if that's of any use. FWIW I am mulling over going for the mop myself, and there's some recent-ish discussion on Dennis' talk about my efforts, though I'm personally not in any rush as I've been moderating internet forums and BBS for about 20 years and seen all the grief and hassle you can get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note on temporary injunction

DHeyward, now that the case is open, proposed injunctions need to go on the workshop page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thx. fixed. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Re your comments

In answer to your comment that you haven't edited any GamerGate articles. You sure have. Christina Hoff Sommers is a GamerGate article. The BLP falls within the scope of the GG sanctions because Sommers is one of the most vocal GamerGate supporters. She is mentioned and quoted several times in the main GamerGate article. (You can also tell by the sudden influx of SPAs and GamerGate editors that CHS is a related page.) Just letting you know. I'm thinking about requesting sanctions so it's a good thing that User:ImprovingWiki, you and I have been officially notified of the GG community sanctions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you think are sanctionable under gamergate. Violating BLP by smearing Sommers with labels (apparently because you object to her gamergate stance?) are not going to win you points. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that we'll see who violated which policy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I requested enforcement here: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement#DHeyward. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, DHeyward. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)