User talk:DHeyward/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Happy New Year DHeyward!

Happy New Year!

DHeyward,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Avono (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks man

It's unrewarding stopping editors who go whitewash people pages and books because of ideological reasons. Know there is a person who appreciates and understands how tiring it is to deal with certain editors. So thanks for doing what you do and continue being awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.202.62 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for your help

Dear DHeyward, - I've been the principal creator and maintainer of the Mark Satin article , and I very much appreciate that you removed "Michael W. Parker"'s fourth (!) recent attempt to characterize the subject of that article as a coward.

Unfortunately, he is at it yet again, and I do not know how to stop this. You will see from the Satin Revision History page that several Wikipedia editors (including me) have reverted his material, but he keeps on plugging away.

Today he restored the "coward" tag, threatened an "edit war," and referenced "sources" mentioned by Satin. That is misleading. Parker's citation is to Satin's website, where Satin states that several unnamed e-mailers have called him a "coward or worse" (since putting his website up in approx. 2000). Thus Parker's "sources." Surely that does not merit mention in an encyclopedia.

I have read all the book excerpts and articles referencing Satin in the Satin article - nearly all of which are available in the "Mark Satin Papers" at the universities of Michigan and Toronto - and I can testify that no reputable source calls him a "coward," though of course several sources disapprove or record disapproval of his decision to emigrate to Canada. The article as it stands already records that disapproval, including (most poignantly) from his own parents. There is no need to rehash that material in the "Assessments" section.

Do you have the power to stop Mr. Parker from continuing to attempt to degrade the Satin article? Alternately, can you tell me where I should turn? I will watch on this site for your reply. Thanks so much for any help you can provide. - Babel41 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Babel41: You can make a report at the BLP Noticeboard WP:BLPN for the article. You can also report an editor at Noticeboard/Incidents WP:ANI. I don't have any more power than you. --DHeyward (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. - Babel41 (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
One other, I requested page protection increase WP:RFPP to "pending changes" which means the edit has to be accepted. --07:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I only want the truth in the article. With all due respect to the author of the Satin article, a person who I am sure is an ardent advocate of Satin, I still insist that Satin's own admission that he has been called a coward should be a part of this article. Also, I do not see any relevant link between Satin and Benjamin Franklin. That to me is a ridiculous correlation. I have removed Ben's photo which has no business being in this article. To connect Benjamin Franklin to Satin's philosophy is absolutely preposterous.--Michael W. Parker (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And you seem to be an ardent anti-advocate, Michael W. Parker. Wikipedia isn't for expressing either attitude, it's supposed to be neutral. I have warned you on your page about edit warring. Babel41, a tip for the future: posting such a warning is useful in these cases, and that is something you can do yourself. You can use a template for the purpose: if you type {{uw-ew}}, it expands to a notice like the one I've posted on Michael W. Parker's page. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC).

IP trolls

As the website has fewer and fewer guardians against the random IP trolls and useless POV pushers one wonders how long it will be before it all collapses upon itself.--MONGO 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many more editors would free up if the parade members of ANI and ARBCOM were given a break. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly...but the drama boards are the website...the IP clowns are either there or tearing up articles and the talkpages by trying to twist things to conform with their perverted world.--MONGO 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hopping IPs makes it much more attractive to edit anonymously. No history and no enforceable blocks. I wish they would make all IP edits subject to "Pending Changes". It used to be that creating an account was more anonymous. Now creating an account is less anonymous than IP edits. Serious editors would create accounts and vandals wouldn't be rewarded with instant gratification. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I like that idea and believe that that sort of thing is likely inevitable if the few are to be expected to keep the POV pushers at bay.--MONGO 13:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Contested hatting

As you reverted my recent hatting of one of Thargor Orlando's disruptive comments and you didn't take it to Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement, I've done so myself. --TS 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate sanction enforcement

Your actions yesterday/today are being discussed here. Woodroar (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Gawker as source, wrong link?

The link you added to Talk:Gamergate controversy seems to be about one Shanley Kane. Did you use the wrong link? I see no obvious connection to Gamergate, or even to Milo (unless he wrote the story at Breitbart on which this gossip piece is based). --TS 04:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There are two breitbart pieces by Milo. One from December. Gawker is picking up the second and commenting. The first article was redacted by NBSB (presumably for defaming anti-GG Shanley) and hatted. Shanley operates under an anti-GG tag (or so-called SJW from the GG side). I don't know all the direct connections through reddit or 4chan/8chan as I don't follow them. Heck, I missed the Cultural marxism deletion because apparently only offsite followers know these links and just saw it on Jimbo's talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
breitbart Dec [1] and Jan [2]. Shanley Doxxed Milo which started harrassing texts and such and prompted a police report. --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I don't even know whether Gawker is regarded as a reliable source, but this is pure gossip recycled from Breitbart, and seems to be some kind of interpersonal feud between distasteful people, one of whom is supposed to have doxed the other.

I've been looking for mainstream sources on this, but if the doxing was in December perhaps I didn't look back far enough. Skimming the Breitbart article from December to which you link above, I see no mention of doxing. But I'll reserve judgement pending a reliable source. I'll make any further comments on substance at the article talk page. Thanks for the explanation.--TS 04:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a bit of a fright in reflecting on this. Essentially you're making a potentially defamatory statement, and a highly defamatory one at that, about a living person, and we at Wikipedia only have your word for the claim. I've seen nothing about this on Google News (conversely, all the harassment we document in the Gamergate article is prominently reported by reliable sources).

While we wait for the corroboration that you are sure will materialise any day now, I've temporarily hatted your new talk page section. If you would, could we please suspend this discussion until you have that reliable source? I'd greatly appreciate it if you would hat our discussion here or simply redact it, and it can be restored when fully corroborated. --TS 13:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The doxxing happened yesterday, Apparently I've been blocked for it which is odd. The account of it is twitter followed by gawker. He was doxxed on twitter publicly for his story that ran today on Breitbart. --DHeyward (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's all an extension of this ARS Technica piece [3]. --DHeyward (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An apology

After reading your edit summary removing my templating I found WP:DTR. I wanted to apologize for the templating. Was not my intention to be rude. — Strongjam (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam No worries. I was trying to reframe my statements to address concerns whenyou templated me. Unfortunately it was used as 2 bullets to get me blocked. That's not your fault but I hope you can appreciate that I was trying to comport a statement for discussion that would not be hatted as I thought it was an important point. Each statement I made addressed the concerns raised prior. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate sucks!

WHACK! You've been slapped with a Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout for not avoiding gamergate nonsense! Stay away from that awful place!--MONGO 20:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
yeah, I know. It's a pit. Heck, sometimes I don't even know an article is gamergate and it sneaks up on me. --DHeyward (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce a community decision,
you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators:
Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.

This block is for repeated BLP violations on Talk:GamerGate controversy, for making comments not directed at improving the article, and for repeatedly posting links to sources you knew and were told were unreliable and which contained material that was no suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The block is a general sanction under the GmaerGate community sanctions provisions and may not be reverse without my consent or consensus at a noticeboard. To appeal to a noticeboard, make a statement here and use {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} to request that your statement be copied to AN or ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell Can you show me the diff of one? As I said on the page I didn't repost after a request was made. I had an edit conflict on one with NBSB where he removed one a second before. The "alternative view", which is the talk page section I was editing is that ethics at game journos are changing due to gamergate. That is not disruptive. I believe you've misread my statements and edits. In addition there is a story of Milo being doxxed and harassed about anti-GG' people. The Breitbart link was in response to the question about who doxxed Milo. The story has been picked up by Gawker and it's Gamergate related and not covered. Much of the evidence is out of context of flow particularly about Grayson. I removed the BLP information and the item that was flagged of evidence is not a BLP violation. This [4] was highlighting that public statement made by Grayson's boss that Grayson did not write about Quinn's games did not mention gamergate either, but is being used as a source because is obviously connected to GG. Other gaming review journos statements' about ethical changes are likewise GG related. That's not a BLP violation by any stretch. NBSB's characteriztion of PC Gamer is wrong. At PC Gamer, the editor stopped writing about a company when his girlfriend took a job there. He still participated in editorial discussions however. Recently, PC Gamer said that not writing about them was not enough and from now on he will remove himself from all discussions of coverage including previewing coverage and assigning journalists. That is different standard than what Grayson was measured against which was an ex post facto standard.. --DHeyward (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, that's simply incorrect. As per the source, the journalist in question did not write reviews of Ubisoft games, but he <redact BLP issue>. That was the initial decision of his supervisors — which they have subsequently said was a mistake and, in the future, he will not write anything about Ubisoft. In Tyler's own words, I started dating my girlfriend in 2011 when she was working for a magazine in the same office. Later in our relationship, in May of 2013, she took a contract job writing for Ubisoft’s blog. At that point, I continued to work on preview and news assignments related to Ubisoft games. ... That was a mistake. ... As Tim mentioned, I stopped reviewing Ubisoft games when she began working there, but going forward, I won’t offer any thoughts on Ubisoft or its games. The attempt at analogizing these two situations thus fails before even reaching the fact that no reliable secondary source has attempted to analogize them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Dude, you missed the entire top half. PC Gamer writers will continue to be obliged to disclose any significant personal relationships with people whose work they might cover, with the expected outcome that they will no longer be assigned to that particular subject. In any situation in which the writer was still required to comment on the subject, full disclosure will be provided in the article. This is disclosure from the reporter to PC Gamer bosses about people they might cover (i.e. any game developer). It's a priori and it's not a public disclosure. That's the standard. There is no longer a "investigate after the fact" to decide as what happened to Grayson since the new expectation is that editors will know beforehand. That's the difference. To illustrate that, Tyler will no longer write or assign any coverage related to Ubisoft. Tyler is now out of even the editorial loop, the internal discussion loop, and not just the writing loop. The ethical standard in every professional news room is that journalist disclose relationships AND don't sit in on meetings where those subjects are discussed. Editors need to know when the relationship starts, not when it is discovered. That was not the ethical standard that Grayson was held to and apparently not the ethical standard being enforced at many gaming review publishers. That has changed and not disclosing is now a very clear ethical breach (one that is not new in mainstream news journals. The next incident deemed ethical will be "Journalist X informed us of their relationship with Y when it began. At that point, Journalist X was removed from any assignments and discussion regarding Y." Anything short of that will be "We were unaware of Journalist X's involvement with Y. That is contrary to our disclosure policy and Journalist X will be disciplined for violating a core ethical principle." --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I refactored a mischaracterization of Tyler that he continued writing about Ubisoft. Tyler is the editor. He stopped writing anything about Ubisoft when his S/O took a job there. He has now removed himself from any discussions regarding Ubisoft including previewing coverage and assigning journalists to review them. As an editor, he is the boss. --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This Gamergate stuff is to be avoided....it's just a troll haven and in the scheme of things matters zero. @HJ Mitchell:...if DHeyward would agree to forever self topic ban from the Gamergate related articles, would you lift this block?--MONGO 16:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that this is only the second block in DHeyward's history, the first in 2007 was lifted after less than 2 hours. I imagine DHeyward would have respected your wishes HJ Mitchell had you issued him a strong warning about the immediate issue before this block.--MONGO 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, as I am unable to properly edit your talk page without violating this block, Happy 10th anniversary. --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts to ponder, without misunderstanding them as condoning your conduct.

On Wikipedia, blocks are the scars that highlight our character, showing the things you have cared about. I've never understood the idea that you shouldn't ever risk a blocking. A life lived without passion is a waste. We learn, we move on.

You should look at my block log when you have lots of spare time to kill. To paraphrase the Oscar Wilde character Gwendolyn Fairfax, I never travel without my block log. One should always have something sensational to read on a train.

In my dotage the most I seem able to muster is a mild chiding from a high school senior. Must try harder. --TS 21:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that but I also understand the rules. I stopped editing the topic when I was raised at sanctions page as I was not prepared for a complaint. I addressed what I thought were the issues and I didn't repeat anything that was complained about. I understand progressive actions. A 48 hour topic ban addresses the same thing as the block. Even better would have been a personal request for either explanation or asking to stop. I don't know the editor that requested sanctions. I am not aware of any attempt by that editor to resolve a dispute. All I know is that I tried to reframe my point when objections. I obviously didn't think the point was frivolous but nor did I think it violated policy. I take complaints seriously and don't push my point beyond the rules. I respect the rules which is why a personal note or question is much more effective than a out of the blue 48 hour block. Blocks like this don't build consensus, they create walls. I don't want walls. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I agree with Mongo. Arguing about Gamergate all day for months on end is a colossal waste of time. You're better off walking away. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Check my history. I don't edit it but on occasion I chime in on the talk page especially when sources about alternative views come up. This was such a case and the talk page topic was "alternative views." I supplied links to discuss alternate views which is what WP:BLPTALK says to do. Not really sure what a 48 hour block accomplishes outside of a 48 hour topic ban. Seems harsh to me. --DHeyward (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on what DHeyward has said here, a change to a 48-hour topic ban seems reasonable. Tom Harrison Talk 00:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I promise not to edit GG pages for 48 hours if an admin feels they can log the commutation at AN (not ANI, that's a bloodpath) and follow HJ's request on his talk page about undoing his actions. I think he is overwhelmed with another defense of a 48 hour block at ANI and a quiet helping hand would be better than a full on shark frenzy. He doesn't need another colonoscopy at this point and I don't want to put him through it. As it stands, It's been 24 hours since I edited the GG talk page but there is still 36 hours of block left. He hasn't responded to pings or requests since the block. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: {{unblock|A block was enacted many hours after my last edit. There was no disruption and a 48 hour topic ban would accomplish the same thing. I don't plan on revisiting the topic which is a current event that started with an ARS Technica article involving an anti-GG person [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/01/toleranux-satirical-linux-fork-mocks-calls-for-open-source-diversity/] and it's fallout in media as well as the doxxing it lead to. For the BLP violations, it was apparently for a link I posted once to Breitbart and once to Gawker since they were covering the doxxing. When the were removed, I didn't replace. I don't believe any statement I made was a BLP violation and my links fell within acceptable talk page link discussions but I understand the complaint and won't repeat it. A 48 hour topic ban would have accomplished the same thing.}}

With your promise not to edit GG pages for 48 hours, I've unblocked you. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I question whether the unblock is correct. It is provided in WP:GS/GG that "Sanctions imposed cannot be undone by another administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard." Did you obtain either of these? It is my impression that an appeal at AN needs consensus. Certainly that is the case for appealing Arbcom sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe; feel free to restore the block if you think it's warranted. Tom Harrison Talk 13:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone can think that there has been "approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard", but I have consulted Tom harrison, and he simply maintains that he is right, without any attempt to explain why. I have therefore taken up his invitation to restore the block. However, I shall post a copy of your unblock request to WP:AN, so that it can be duly considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, at the top of his user talk page HJ Mitchell does give permission to other administrators to revert any sysop action: Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks. --TS 15:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus in the WP:AN discussion is clear that the reblock was out of place and that the original block was correct. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that you've unblocked. Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone for your help. --DHeyward (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note a typo on my part: it should have read and that the original unblock was correct. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

John Glenn

FYI: John Glenn went into space twice. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin D. Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purple Hearts. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixing V Devices for USN Members

You may have noticed earlier that I fixed the V device placements for Kyle's BSM and NAM; you can conveniently and quickly get the markup coding for those placements from the text in the V Device article inside the examples sections for USA/USAF and USN/USMC members accordingly. Just thought I'd point that out FYSA if you ever need it in the future... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: Thanks, I saw the code. How stars and devices are placed is a knowledge gap more than a programming gap. I saw the template and contemplated creating an overload function but that would be risky and it's a well used template. I like the ribbon template but they are also difficult to verify especially non-valor devices. e.g. I can only find one Silver Star citation for Kyle but it's widely reported he has 2 SS and 5 BS with V. Purple heart is also difficult to verify the multiple awards. I have to look up things like whether it's a cluster or a star and how the devices would be arranged. --DHeyward (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Roger that, I can appreciate how tricky it gets. I'm no expert but I have 28+ yrs split between USA/USAR service, and may be able to contribute an opinion from time to time if need be when you're trying to figure out a device arrangement. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@AzureCitizen: Excellent. Then please have a look at Franklin D. Miller. I compiled his a few days ago. Valor stuff is easy to find. Presidential unit citations and others are difficult. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The ribbons appear to be in order, nothing out of place, etc. I did switch from the gold colored USN "Combat V" to the bronze colored USA "V Device" for the BSM, and also changed the NDSM and VSM medals to use 3/16" service stars instead of Navy 5/16" award stars. With regard to unit citations, they don't show up on the ribbon rack for Army members (worn instead above opposite jacket pocket), while Navy members wear them inside the rack with their other awards. If you're still trying to find sources for medals themselves, I'll probably not as useful there; my expertise is picking out when a device isn't arranged correctly or something is "off", etc. Let me know if there is some other specific question I can answer. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So...

I think you can afford to lay off MarkBernstein's talk page, the topic ban is already in effect right? Unless it's at a noticeboard or an enforcement request or something like that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Your comment on Jimbo's page about Gamergate, the ArbCom, and the problems with articles on current controversies was very useful.

Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Since David A did not bother to inform you, I'm letting you know he mentioned you at AN/I [5]--MONGO 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to inform him. But I can't do everything at once. David A (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas is not worth responding to...best to not feed him as his sole purpose is to aggravate not alleviate.--MONGO 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

ugh...you should have reminded me to listen to my own advice. What a pest...--MONGO 06:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that even though I have not levelled a single personal attack (like calling someone an asshole which is a personal attack) he may have had more luck in his endeavour to see me blocked or banned by stating dispassionately and without ad nauseam repetition the reasons why I am so allegedly a menace to that article's improvement. Golly gee these people end up defeating themselves... its so clumsy.--MONGO 07:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Do not feed the trolls!--MONGO 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please do not edit the comments other make as you did here. --John (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad! Naughty DHeyward!--MONGO 07:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at edits by that account...DHeyward just gave him a page no different than posting on the talkpage of the troll.--MONGO 13:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a BLP violation to write that a living person has created Nazi or KKK propaganda films. I'll redact BLP violations when I see them. --DHeyward (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward/Archive_16&oldid=1084036256"