User talk:DHeyward/Archive 1

Anon 68.xx IP
I noticed that that the anon IP reverted one of your articles. I put it back to normal- this sitation sounds like a case of Wikistalking. If he does it again, let me know. Daniel Davis 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Regarding the vandal
fsdfThere was no legal threat regarding Harry Reid. Danny 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So what is the reason for protection? Tbeatty 04:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have had no constructive response from the protecting sysop, then that is poor form on their part. Even if they do work for the Wikimedia Foundation, if they take an admin action on a wiki, they should be prepared to explain to the extent permissible by the situation. However, since the protection was applied per WP:OFFICE it is not for another admin to reverse at present, and requesting unprotection will not result in it. The request is rejected before you even make it, I'm afraid. -Splash talk 23:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think that the request would stay on the Unlock Request page until it is unlocked or explained. If you cannot unlock it, leave it for whoever can. Tbeatty 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. There is no admin who will unprotect it, short of User:Jimbo Wales or User:Danny. If it's an explanation you're after, please take it to one of those two editors; they are the only ones who can provide it. Thanks. -Splash talk 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's the explanation and the unlock that I am waiting for.  It seems odd that the page was rewritten and then locked.  I have left messages at both their talk pages with no response.  This seems very "un-Wiki."  Tbeatty 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Weasal Words!
Are you implying that I am weasle! Just kidding nice edit.--M4bwav 02:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This word, it does not mean what you think it means. Ambiguity is the hallmark of the weasel, not superfluity.
 * Au Contraire, there was a plethora of weasel words. The weasel is as ambiguous as he is superfluous.  If those arguments cannot stand without the weasel words, they are not sourced properly.  The example list is not all inclusive.  Basically if the sentence isn't enhanced in any way by the word but is designed to create doubt or authority where none exists (or can be sourced), it's a weasel word.  "Contrast", "purported", "alleged" and "supposed" are red flag words.  I think all of them are in the examples in some way.


 * Not to beat a dead weasel, but take the opinion by the Utah reasearcher. The term is "In contrast".  The idea is that this is needed for NPOV and to give a different viewpoint.  "In contrast" is trying to provide that.  But in reality, the Utah researchers view needs to stand alone and be valid on it's (and his) merits.  He should be an authority regardless of whether he is a minority or majority view.  The rules don't change because of viewpoint.  The whole idea of eliminating weasel words is to make sure the authority is located in the right place.  In this case, the Utah reasearcher is an expert.  His view is important, not because it is contrarian, but because he is an expert.  Removing the weasel words makes sure that this is the case.--Tbeatty 05:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Since you appear to be a relatively new user and you've done a lot of reverting on the Joe Scarborough article, I feel I should warn you about Three revert rule. Gamaliel 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware of Wikipedia policy. I don't believe hardly any of my edits were reverts.  I have strived for citiation and neutral language and have tried multiple versions.  None of these appear to be acceptable to you and you continue to revert edits to the exact POV language that was cited as a DailyKOS blog which is unacceptable.  I have now simply moved to quoting the Bill that was referenced.   Tbeatty 04:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
You haven't filled out the form correctly. Please do so. --Fast e n talk 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Morgan Report

 * You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.

--Fasten 16:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dick Cheney
Please do not vandalize this article again by removing verifiable facts. Dick Cheney admitted telling Patrick Leahy to "go fuck yourself" and so did the White House and other Republican senators, since they were defending the remark. Do not remove the reference from the article again. You blatantly chose to ignore the source offered right there and deleted it. Political hacks are not welcome on wikipedia.
 * Then source the claim. Your account was blatantly incorrect and unsourced.  I discussed it on the discussion page.

Joe Scarborough
Hi! I've been assigned to help mediate the issues concerning this article, and want to invite you to begin the process by outlining your position on the issues more fully here. Much thanks! Fishhead64 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Evidently, you're the only user active in the debate who is open to mediation via the cabal.  Therefore, I'm booking out of this one.  You may wish to pursue arbitration along more formal lines.  Best of luck. Fishhead64 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA assistance
Hello Tbeatty. I noticed that you have requested assistance to put in an RfA. I have looked at your statistics, and it indicates that if you put in an RfA, you will most likely be overwhelmingly defeated - as you have ~600 edits, only 140 distinct pages edited, and have only been significantly active for 2 months. Usually people want at least 2000 edits, and at least three months of heavy editing. If you would like to discuss this, feel free to drop me a message, per the link in my signature. Regards,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you help. You listed my statistics but not what is necessary (except 2000 edit, 3 months).  What are the other average stats?--Tbeatty 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually, to be safe, about 4000 edits and 4 months of consistent activity(the low end applies if your edits are a low number of large edits, and are prominent), participation in admin-related tasks such as cleaning up vandalism, patrolling Special:Newpages for nonsense pages, tagging unworthy material for deletion, participating in WP:AFD debates, and also general interaction with the community on eg, Wikiprojects such as WP:CRIC, so that they show an understanding of dealing with difference and conflict. Usually they want at least 10-20% edits on the Wikipedia-space, and also: no vandalism, personal attacks, inappropriate methods of dealing with disputes such as major revert-wars/disruption. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use
Do not plagiarize websites when you are editing content into Wikipedia as you did in the National Security Archive article. This action is considered a copyright violation. See WP:COPY for more information on this policy. Also, do not remove factual information from articles. If you cannot prove a fact wrong then put it up for discussion in the talk page of article in question. Please contribute to the Wikipedia in a constructive, rather than destructive, manner. Thank you. --Strothra 01:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A cited extract from an "About" page from an organization is considered Fair Use. Learn it, live it, love it. --Tbeatty 02:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is good that you cited it, but it is still inappropriate to use the material in this manner. It should be clearly identified as a quotation of non-original, non-WP material or, better yet, just put it in your own words. Gamaliel 02:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain how and why you think it is inappropriate to include a small excerpt from an about page after properly citing it? I will quote it as such, but I don't think it is necessary.  It is Fair Use.  Newspapers do it all the time.  IT is extremely prvalent all through Wikipedia.  --Tbeatty 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Including the excerpt is not the problem. The problem was that you failed to identify that it is not original writing. Fair use allows us to quote it, not to pass it off as our own material. Gamaliel 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I most certainly did identify it with the source. --Tbeatty 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not change the category header which I make for the discussion which I initiated on your talk page. Please note that this is not your own personal space but is made for the benefit of all Wikipedia users.--Strothra 22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll change my talk page to whatever title I feel is most appropriate for my talk page. If you don't like the title on my talk page, please take it to your own talk page.  I will also delete my talk page and archive it as I see fit.  --Tbeatty 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Please have a look at the bottom of the page you ironically allege the wikipedia plagiarism article itself plagiarized from. You will find that you are mistaken. JasonKitrick 01:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't allege Wikipedia plagiarized. I found the question posted on the talk page of plagiarism.  I found the identical list on that web site.   Wikipedia isn't a primary source so that list must have come from somewhere.  It was unsourced.  So I left the category but removed the list with the note.  I was hoping someone could source it so it could be included. --Tbeatty 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not heard back. The list and wording is altered slightly from the one that appears here. That violates the terms that website if it is the original source.  IT needs to be cited.  It's a WP:COPYVIO if it's not cited and altered.--Tbeatty 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change?
Hi Tbeatty. After reading some of your comments over at the Daniel Brandt AfD, I began to wonder what your opinion is of Wikipedia as a whole. What parts of Wikipedia do you like, and what parts do you think should be changed? I'm just curious really. I think it would be interesting to compare/contrast your opinions to my own. Thanks! ~MDD4696 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what parts to change. I agree with Jimbo about most of what he perceives as systemic bias on wikipedia.  I think is great for science, mathematics, engineering, geography and historic figures and events.  I think there is a built in left-leaning bias on current affairs and politics especially among administrators since the sytemic bias in editors is dwindling as Wikipedia grows bit the longest contributors still have a strong leftward tilt.  It's tone more than an active leftist agenda (although there are thoses administrators as well).  Of course, the individual variation is a lot larger than the systemic bias.  I think there is an internalization of "The Rules" that rival any religious doctrine.


 * I think a lot more thought needs to be put in place regarding living person bios including an outside review of articles that make it in Wikipedia. I would like to see a standard format that can be edited, reviewed and locked.  Proposed edits to standard sections after a lock would need external review.  It seems to me that media organization need biographies of living persons so it seems some mutually beneficial relationship could be worked out with them.  They approve edits and content, Wikipedia editors submit them.  Even with the standard format, an "open" section could be created that is still wide open for edits according to current wikipedia rules.  This would help ensure that the standard sections lived up to vetting and scrutiny.  It would also put a news organization on the hook for content so Siegenthalar couldn't happen again.  I would like to see the tone of living bios changed from a NPOV to a sympathetic POV.


 * I think there need to be gradations of "notable" with certain grades getting notified that their bio is about to be posted and give them time to comment on it while it is private so they aren't battling the overwhelming masses.  There are editors out there who will simply revert any edit made by the subject because "it is inherently biased."   Some gradations of notability ought to have the ability to opt out of having their bio's posted.  After reviewing it, if they are not comfortable with the content, they can simply say no.  Whatever event made them notable can still be covered per policy, but biographical information about that particular person, because of his notability grade, is ommitted.  Currently, the policy is "all or nothing" in terms of what can be published.   In terms of Brandt, I don't think he is particularly notable.  He would be an in-between grade.  I would give him a shot at his bio.  I would give him the option of opting out.  I would still cover all of his notable projects.   But I wouldn't make Wikipedia the link repository for newspaper accounts if his personal biographical info.  Nor would I reword those articles so that information is retained in perpetuity.


 * I would also ban anonymous IP edits. AOL is the bane to Wikipedia.  Anonymity can still happen with accounts but it will cut down the random vandalism as well as the outright POV edits and reverts that AOL and other constantly switching IP addresses get.  They "game the system" and there is no need for it.

--Tbeatty 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of your proposals seem fundamentally anti-wiki. *Dan T.* 23:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not very constructive. Why would you think they are "anti-wiki?"--Tbeatty 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Crank (person)
Instead of simply deleting the new categories that you are apparently unhappy with, could you please make some suggestions as to how we can structure the long and very heterogenous list that I had started to sort into more systematic groups? Henning Makholm 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is to provide sources. Sources cannot be other wikipedia articles (i.e. tertiary sources).  This is wikipedia policy.  You cannot create the list yourself as that would be {{WP:NOR} violation.  Find a reputable source that has created a list of cranks and cite it.  The other option is to create a list (instead of an article) and add individual pages to it.  But as it stands now, this article is completely unsourced and appears to be all orginal research or opinion.  --Tbeatty 17:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Providing sources is not going to get the existing list get sorted. It is a mess with or without sources. Henning Makholm 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it needs to be deleted until the sourcing situation get's resolved.--Tbeatty 18:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Help
Hey I know that you don't like POV. Would like to take a look at the article Jesse Dirkhising with me? It needs major POV work for reasons which you will see and I thought that you'd be a good editor to go to. --Strothra 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I corrected what I considered POV. Gamaliel claims titles such as conservative or liberal need to be "self identified".  I don't' disagree with that.  I left what was self identified and deleted what wasn't.  I also deleted the Original Research for Google hits.  Overall I thought the article was reasonably fair although there are rebuttals to the rebuttals.  The Jon-Benet Ramsey murder is a specific rebuttal to everything Jonathan Gregg claimed.

Interesting Web Page
(removing link and/or promotion of hate/attack site per WP:BADSITES)


 * I've seen it. My interest in Brandt isn't related to his criticism of wikipedia, but rather an overall view of bios and how they are presented in Wikipedia.   Wikipedia, in my opinion, does a poor job of determining what is a private vs. public person.  A lot of it is systemic bias and some is just outright hostility.  Either way, Brandt deserves a fair shake (NPOV) in his own biography regardless of how certain editors feel about his views on Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep vote
With regard to Articles for deletion/Michael Steele credit report incident, where you voted "speedy keep", I wanted to let you know that this does not appear to meet the requirements for a speedy keep to be implemented. Please clarify what reason you have for this article to be speedy kept. Stifle (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I was the first voter, "speedy keep" would have applied if the nomination were withdrawn. As it is, the desire of the proposer is actually to Merge which is also a "speedy keep". This is a DSCC and Michael Steele incident and it seems easier to keep a separate article with details rather than having to update both pages.  --Tbeatty 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Biographies
Nice to see someone else pressing for more rigor on biographies, especially Daniel Brandt. I have been very interested in improving bios of people critical of Wikipedia, as I think these are a good way to set a higher standard and perhaps bring critics around. Nice work! Jokestress 21:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's nice to be appreciated.  Sometimes I feel like I am swimming uphill a waterfall.  I am glad you noticed. --Tbeatty 21:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR
Hi, I want to thank you for your comments on NOR talk page. Slimvirgin has decided to revert my statement (which I felt necessary because of the insults being lodged against myself and others and which was intended simply to form a consensus one way or the other). From the beginning if you read the log - I have been trying to get answers out of this user and have been insulted along the way. I think an RFC is best. I promised an Arbcom member, who came to my aid against this users abuse, and has started up a dialog with myself through email, as I am willing to discuss matters civilly with anyone. I promised that member that I would not revert the NOR page again, and then extended my promise to not post on talk for two weeks. I will keep that promise. I notified that member of my intentions of posting the protest because I felt helpless in lieu of all the attacks made. You may email me with any further questions. I want to put the NOR matter behind me; and have decided to try to take one month off of Wikipedia as a result. But, pretty much this user Slimvirgin had abused others several times, refused to collaborate, refused to answer questions on her edit, and instead has personally insulted myself and others who question her edit. I was open to it - provided a safety net existed against abuse by the language she changed. I thought that safety net might be a Consensus of editors on a given page; so I edited her version to that. She chose to attack my edits as an attempt to undermine NOR, which is not what I was doing. She then as in the past attempted to associate me with a cult or whatnot; it is all so wrong and insulting and all this while I was committed not to engage in talk there. You think she would of waited until I could respond. Several times I tried to work in harmony with her; extended my hand when needed, and she continues with some sort of vendetta that seems vile in nature. She even got Twrigely a former member of the mediation cabal to quite Wikipedia because he ruled in my favor (suggesting I go to Arbcom) in a mediation case between myself and her (abuse); she called him names, said he didn't have the standing to mediate, etc. etc. and then went to an article he had put days if not months into and revenge-reverted his work; he eventually left - but not before I defended him the best I could against her abuse. I have written to much. Sorry. Again thanks for the comment. My protest and suggestion for consensus to be formed officially has been reverted and the mess at NOR continues. --Northmeister 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen her before. My impression is that SV thinks wikipeida is hierarchical in structure.  Her own page has a discussion about forming a Cabal that limits editing to policy pages.  "Experience" is not a requirement on Wikipedia to contribut to anything and official policy supports this.  Her change to NOR is unnecessarily narrow.  Pleaes take it to the arbcom committee so we can vote.  I supoport the version of NOR that doesn't have the POV language.  --Tbeatty 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ē== Daniel Brandt ==

Yeah, see this page. — FireFox • T [17:33, 16 April 2006]
 * Yes, he was blocked by Gamaliel but the tag says:
 * This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales, and/or the Arbitration Committee.
 * Gamaliel is an administrator, therefore the tag is correct. — FireFox • T [17:43, 16 April 2006]
 * where is the ruling so that we can read it?--Tbeatty 17:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ruling? That's funny. There's no ruling. It's all capricious and arbitrary, and depends only on the mood of an administrator at a particular point in time. -- Daniel Brandt 66.142.89.246 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators in this case can mean singlular or plural. And anyway, Mr Brandt can email a request to be unblocked, and he had plenty of time to slap on his userpage before the page was protected (but didn't bother). Do you really think that anybody would listen anyway? Maybe straight after he was blocked, someone might have cared, but not after trolling around anonymously (as above), don't you think? You say there should be a log of discussion or an RfA. RfA? Do you mean RfAr? — FireFox • T [09:13, 17 April 2006]
 * I meant either a Request for Comment or Request for Arbitration. And I don't think I would call it 'trolling' as his comments don't qualify for the definition.  Besides, I didn't think there was a time limit on appealing unblocks.  I think it is very unusual for a block to include the talk page of the Blocked user.--Tbeatty 14:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * His userpage was protected because the whole affair was turning into a drama, and Mr Brandt's talk page is not the place for such discussions and arguments to take place. — FireFox • T [16:36, 17 April 2006]


 * Users and admins have now taken the "drama" to his article talk page in the form of spam linking. Don't you think his user talk page is a better place to discuss that?  --Tbeatty 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Where's the spam linking? — FireFox • T [19:30, 17 April 2006]
 * There is a whole discussion on DB's spam linking (or the contention that his redirection of his site constitues spam linking) on his article talk page. Normally we would discuss actions of a wikipedia editor on his talk page.  But that is blocked so they apparently have taken it to his article page.  See Gmaxwell's additions to the talk page.  --Tbeatty 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting
Could I ask you please to reconsider your attitude toward reverting? I haven't edited with you much, but whenever I've seen you interact with another editor, your practise has been to revert the instant you disagree, even where the disagreement is relatively minor or could be explained in one or two posts on the talk page. I'm by no means an editor who disapproves of reverting as much as some do, and yet even I find your approach excessive. For example, with your recent revert of my deletion of a banned user's post, it would have been just as easy for you to ask on the talk page which banned user I thought the IP address belonged to. Admins don't remove posts for no reason. My guess is that you'll find editing more pleasant if you revert less often, because it might be less stressful. Anyway, this is just my advice, which of course you're free to ignore. I offer it in the spirit of constructive comment, so I hope it's received in the same spirit. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you feel this way as it is not borne out by fact. I have at least as many edits to talk pages as I do articles.  I rarely revert.  However, I have noticed that you rarely respond to talk discussions as changing your particular POV.  In the rare instances that we've interacted, I feel that you don't give other editors due regard for their concerns or points of view.  For example, in the Daniel Brandt page you haven't responded to my comment nor have you made an attempt to reach consensus.  Indeed, my last comment on Daniel Brandt was a "talk" sentence, while my last article entry on the subject was reverted (by you no less).  While you may think that administrators don't "remove posts for no reason", you haven't provided a reason for removing the Wikipedia Review talk page post.  It wasn't controversial nor did it violate any policy.  You believe that person was a sock puppet of a banned user.  Blocking "sock puppets" is considered controversial and obligates you to provide substantial reasoning.  Reverting edits of a supposed sock puppet on a talk page would be considered more controversial.  From my standpoint, it is up to you to provide the explanation as to whay a perfectly reasonable post on a Talk page needs to be deleted.  The fact that you "can" should not be confused with what you "should" do.  I question why you feel you need to delete a post so quickly.  It was not offensive or threatening in any way.  The post itself did not violate any wikipedia policy.   This is not unlike the experience of the user at WP:NOR who questioned your heavy handedness of a) changing policy and b) locking the article so no one else could change it back.  This is likewise offered in the spirit of constructive comment.  There are many who question why you seem to believe such a heavy handed view of adminsitration is required.   Seeing an administrator delete or revert seemingly harmless content on a Talk page for a violation of "sock puppet" or seeing them edit and lock pages is very intimidating to new users.  I would suggest you stop using administrative powers in this way.  By all means, continue to hunt down banned users.  By all means help contribute to articles and policy.  But I would reserve deleting user comments and total lockdowns to the barest minimum as it is a longstanding Wikipedia philosophy. --Tbeatty 06:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasle words a Killian documents
I agree with your edit today, which removed some weasle words there. Merecat 05:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA
--M e ts501talk &bull; contribs 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Message from Thewolfstar
User:Thewolfstar, currently blocked for a second time for violation of NPA, has asked that you visit her user page for unspecified discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Tbeatty 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar - re: NPOV
Hey Tbeatty, I read your comments on the NPOV talk page. I added a comment, too. You said ''But I don't know that Wikipedia "Justice" is encyclopedic. In fact it appears that most political or news events contain juxtaposing talking points from the extremes. I am not sure this qualifies as NPOV but it seems to be the best we can do for now.'' I don't believe it's the best we can do now. There is strength in numbers and there are a lot of editors who are being persecuted because of their opposition to the left-wing mob here at Wiki. We can bring fact and neutrality back to Wikipedia if make a concerted, relentless effort to do so. (I have no agenda, I personally detest the left and right wings of this and all systems of government or state). Please leave comments here or on my talk page. I have been wanting to talk to you badly. thewolfstar


 * No one will delete anything from my talk page.
 * Actually neutrality is probably the best we can do. Anything that is even close to a conservative POV is usually deleted or RVd withing moments.  That would be okay if the same were true of the left.  Often the left wing POV is accepted as truth without question.  While anything that tries to turn the LW POV to NPOV requires sourcing to the hilt.  You would not imagine the hypocrisy I have dealt with.


 * The other big piece that is hte hardest battle I have been fighting is what's included. No one wants to delete information.  For example, on the Joe Scarborough page there is a paragraph on Lori Klausutis.  She is a low level staffer who worked in one of his offices in Florida.  Due to an unkown heart condition she passed out, hit her head on a desk and died.  She was alone at the time.  This incident has nothing to do with Joe Scarborough but the POV pushers want to include it as an attempt smear JS.  JS even complained to Wikipedia about the innuendo.  Even one of JS's harshest partisan critics thought better about including this incident in his book on his chapter on Scarborough.   Political bios in general on Wikipedia need a lot of work.  Daniel Brandt, a left wing privacy advocate, has a huge and personal biography.  He is a rather anonymous critic of Wikipedia, google and basically search engines that search and archive information forever.  Comparatively, the bio of PGP creator and winner of numerous privacy awards and internet privacy guru is about 1/10 the size of Daniel Brandt.  The reason?  Daniel Brandt has pissed of the cabal by identifying the anonymous editor who libeled John Siegenthaler.


 * My advice to you, unsolicited so you may ignore, is keep the dispute to content.  Don't violate 3RR. Source everything.  On living bios, delete unsourced information especially if it is defamatory and/or POV.  Learn the rules so you can cite policy for your edits.   POV is often pushed with weasel words and/or psasive voice.  Learn to spot and change it to active voice and fix weasel words.   I have banned twice and both were mistakes and were reversed by admins who did the bans.  POV pushers will bait you to violate the rules.  Walk away or make progress to consensus and avoid rv'ing if possible.


 * And remember, wikipedia is a blog. A well-indexed and reference blog but a blog nonetheless.  It is not a religion or a way of life.  Walk away of it makes you angry because it's just not worth stressing over.  Remember every edit you make can be changed and undone tomorrow so the amount of time and stress you suffer for it should be put in the perspective that it may not last longer than one day. --Tbeatty 00:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Super good advice, Tbeatty. Merecat 00:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

to Tbeatty, I will treasure your advice forever. It is the best all around advice I have gotten yet here at the Wiki. (This is not to compare you to Merecat who has given me tons of excellent advice, and whose brave and constant support has been the reason I am still here.) When they locked me up last time, you left me a comment that said "What help do you want..I can't unblock you." I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't asking you to get me unblocked, I just was looking for support. The advice you just gave me is a lot of support, and I will keep it and use it frequently. A heartfelt thanks, Maggiethewolfstar 23:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome and good luck
You must be referring to the political activists who keep adding nonsense to the GWB article, like the Saudi flights conspiracy theory and the U.C.S. petition.... LOL. Thanks for the 'welcome' :)--FairNBalanced 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:TPO + other things
Please follow WP:TPO; do not edit other user's comments to add your own. If you must make a comment, then please reply to them below their comment (or in your own section, since it happened at WP:AE).

Speaking of AE, don't redirect your talk page to there. It's disruptive and defeats the whole purpose of a talk page. Sky Warrior  18:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
DHeyward, what are you trying to achieve there by violating WP:TPO and edit war to keep your edit in someone else's comment? Please stop, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Fuck it
They block or ban you or me it only proves my point...that no pettiness is small enough to stop them from eliminating their opposition. They only want me around if I edit articles on parks an mountains...or support their progressive gods at FAC. It would be ludicrous for us to continue to pretend this website has any intention of being neutral in some areas.--MONGO 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are literally saying I deliberately violated a 1 month topic ban on the 31st day of the ban. It's asinine.  They've equivocated it downto a single edit highlighted by Marek after the ban has expired.  Heck, they even want to sanction the originator because it was baseless. It's insane.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is very, very difficult to view what's going on at AE as anything other than a purge. The original topic ban placed by User:TonyBallioni was very unclear and even he himself didn't seem to understand what it covered. So now the prevailing opinion is that since DHeyward somehow may have run afoul of a bad sanction (yet nobody seemed to care at the time of the edits...) that a "reset" of the topic ban and converting it to the standard AP2 topic ban would be a good idea. The diffs presented by the filing editor are clearly not sanctionable (Garner isn't a politician, and questioning the notability of a subject is done all the time), and the addition of diffs by Marek seems to be an abuse of the process. TonyBallioni, if you're reading, do the right thing here and close this dramafest with a warning (as you should have done a month ago). Mr Ernie (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement result
Based on the filing at WP:AE, you are banned for one month from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. This has been recorded at WP:ACDSL. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:TonyBallioni Please explain how the diffs presented in the filing (linked here and here constitute violations requiring sanctions under either BLP or AP2. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional diffs were provided by Volunteer Marek which a consensus of administrators agreed was a violation of DHeyward's topic ban. As I explained at AE, the totality of the editing picture based on all diffs provided showed one unamibgious topic ban violation, and several other potential topic ban violations, which taken as a whole, suggested that the topic ban should be reset. The diffs provided by Andrew Davidson were on the edge as GoldenRing pointed out, and I agreed with MastCell and Masem that when the topic ban was reset it should be broader to avoid ambiguity. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to try this one more time. Let me first lay out your topic ban - - it plainly says DHeyward is prohibited from editing articles about American politicians. Here come the diffs:
 * Andrew's first diff This article is about Erica Garner. She is not an American politician.
 * Andrew's second diff This article is about Erica Garner. She is not an American politician.
 * VM's first diff This article is about Erica Garner. She is not an American politician.
 * VM's second diff This article is about Joe Scarborough. He is not an American politician, AND the diff removes a BLP violation (no editor should ever be sanctioned for removing BLP violations).
 * VM's third diff This article is about the former ambassador to Luxembourg. He fits the definition of an American politician, although our lead calls him an attorney and businessman. This seems to be a violation of the topic ban, but happened 2 weeks ago.
 * VM's fourth diff This is a talk page, not an article.

So to summarize you've sanctioned an editor for basically one edit that happened a few weeks ago. That would be a punitive sanction, as there clearly is no ongoing disruption, which is what sanctions are intended to prevent. I can see you are convinced you've done the right thing here, so I'll close with this - why is the first approach with long standing, productive editors never discussion or dialogue, but sanctions? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't plan on relitigating the entire AE thread here. Consensus among the commenting administrators was that the topic ban should be reset, and I would not have done so without the agreement of my colleagues. Scarborough is a former member of congress who is now a cable TV political commentator, so he unambiguously falls within the topic ban of living and recently deceased American politicians and related topics, broadly construed. The broad construction and the related topics clause is intended to avoid WikiLawyering in situations like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect that consensus was gathered before the above kind of analysis was performed. Whatever happened to "communication" here?  Why is there a group of editors hell-bent on wikilawyering contributors into longer and longer blocks from doing helpful things?  It's pretty clear this set of circumstances could all have been resolved with a couple of messages to DHeyward rather than this AE request and OTT reaction.  But I am no longer surprised.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Its a tough thing when we have to evaluate others actions not knowing them as people or having worked with them constructively elsewhere. I'm strongly opposed to anything even remotely robotic when it comes to applying sanctions but recognize much in that arena must be black and white. I will say that in the area which DHeyward is now once again topic banned, he was a very key player long ago helping keep conspiracy theorists at bay in one of the most difficult editing situations on this website. For that and everything else he has done to try and bring neutrality to this website, I am deeply thankful he is a Wikipedian.--MONGO 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I dislike scrutinizing editors' contributions to find borderline things to complain about at AE, but such scrutiny by other editors seems to be a very effective way of affecting article content.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The pitfalls of the AE and arbcom process is the admins and arbitrators are somewhat limited by what is placed as evidence. I prefer strong evidence of malfeasance over petty distinctions when impacting anyone's editing, even someone I strongly disagree with. I do not think I have filed an AE case in a very long time. Prefer to have a s strong argument, and while civility is best, neutrality is paramount. So many BLPs violate UNDUE its alarming and this is partly to explain for the lack of respect this website gets. Many may not like DHeyward's style or his personal POV, but silencing him doesn't help make this website more neutral or more reliable.--MONGO 00:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

DS violation
So soon? You made changes. I challenged them. You restored them violating the "consensus required" provision. In a blind revert. Of edits which blatantly violate policy (SYNTH and OR in particular).

Please self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and since your earlier edits were also reverts, this is also a 1RR violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the edits you restored were challenged. They are being discussed.  You restored them without consensus.  Numerous editors have move pass the material you retored and your wholesale ignoring of that is disruptive.  You should restore the version before you started reverting.--DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You made changes to the article. I challenged them. You reverted. If there is discussion on going we go back to the original text (which I restored). It's pretty straight forward.
 * And in addition to the edit under discussion, this was your prior revert within 24 hours. Oh, and there was another one here. So you had actually violated 1RR even before your latest, making it a 2RR vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

ReleaseTheMemo
Your recent editing history at ReleaseTheMemo 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


 * And I want to note, that once again, you're jumping in to facilitate controversial edits made by brand new, fly-by-night, IP accounts. This is starting to become a pattern - an anon shows up and reverts, their revert is undone, then DHeyward pops up with his full clip of three reverts to continue the edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)