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)

The article in question

Obviously we don't see eye to eye on this overall topic, but I just want to ask, did you look at the college newspaper link in question? Specifically sentences 1 & 2 of paragraph 2, that's the kind of claims that we usually only see from one-and-done throwaway accounts. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem I saw was the sentences that said she had relationships with multiple journalists for positive reviews of DQ. That's obviously not going to be allowed in WP as every journalist named has denied it and there is no indication they reviewed DQ. WP editors claiming that it is "libelous", "illegal" and they are going to be "sued" is over the top. The source fails WP:RS's and that's pretty much all that needs to be said. It would never make it into the article. Legal threats/hyperbole in addition to threatening sanctions for providing a link on a talk page (not even repeating it) is quite the overreaction. --DHeyward (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It also claimed that Quinn was directly responsible for orchestrating the "hacking and destruction" of something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed to be a rehash of the claims regarding The Fine Young Capitalists (I can't read exactly what it said but it's a pretty common accusation). It's still just an unreliable source. Linking to it for commentary does not justify topic ban or all the legal threats. BTW, TFYC is a victim as well from what I have read but no concrete link to Quinn except as competitors. --DHeyward (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I must be an old man because I have no clue why this gamergate issue even exists...some ex boyfriend did something and then I dunno...I don't get it...its all so disturbingly boring and of so little consequence. I would avoid it at all costs...its not even interesting. I can't figure it out. Even after two four packs of stout I don't get it. It would be really nice if some youngster could explain to this old man what this nonsense is all about in less than a paragraph.--MONGO 02:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm old too. The intrigue isn't the actual events that lead up to it. It's how how the pro/anti GG people have lined up along political lines. Here's a Vox piece by Ezra Klein [1]. The sides in the controversy haven't emerged because of the issues, which are a sideshow. Rather politics have defined the sides and political talking heads have used it as a jumping off point to score their political points that they want to make. --DHeyward (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still confused! I even read the article you linked.--MONGO 02:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mongo, Gamergate is about that electric ping-pong game they came out with a few years ago. The girls are mad 'cause the boys are hogging the game and not letting them play. The boys say the girls are ruining the game; other boys say it's already ruined and girly, 'cause it's fake ping pong on a tv. And all the boys and girls are like thirty years old and have graduate degrees in the humanities, and only have time for this because they can only get 25 hours a week at Starbucks, because of Obamacare. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense. Obamacare actually cured all the other ills in society and this is the last, great battle. Southpark will cover it all one day in the historical documents just as they cover every raging topic at WP and hopefully a music tribute. GG lives on because the relevance of everyone involved depends on it - otherwise they fade into the obscurity of a multi-billion dollar industry. Just saw a new article on GG today as a matter of fact. If only Kaypro were so saavy, the laptop market would have emerged a decade before it did and us early adopters would be hip instead of old.--DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah...Mr. Harrison to the rescue. Least I have him and DHeyward to make some sense of all this stuff for me. As a side note, Starbucks puts something in their coffee...I swear it...I think it's not just caffeine...well, wow. It must have some impact boosting device as cigarette manufacturers use. How else can you expect people to pay almost as much for one large cup of java as one would for a six pack of beer!!!???--MONGO 04:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Who Stole Feminism?. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that your deletion of sourced content was reverted by two editors. You're essentially edit-warring against two editors. And please stop following me as you did when you followed me to the above mention article and the Rule of Thumb article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, DHeyward. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I've dispatched an e-mail explaining precisely what is actionably libelous about the column. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would ignore Sonicyouth86 from here on. Unless of course if he persists in trying to get you sanctioned for having the he audacity for opposing his editing. In other words, further retorts at ANI regarding this will likely do little goodli and just play into his schemes.--MONGO 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's how I took NE Ent's comment as well and struck my SPI comments as more than one editor (NE Ent at ANI and another editor on the SPI page) took issue with it. Binsternet explains his relationship with Sonicyouth86 on the SPI talk page [2]. There's apparently a lot of wikiwars I am not familiar with including "Men's Rights movement" (didn't think it was a wiki-war). As I uncover the scorecard, it appears there is this big overarching thing that is the basis of "Mens Rights", gamergate, gender gap, feminism, radical feminism, wikipediocracy and Cultural Marxism (go have a look at that brewing disaster headed for arbcom with all the same players - it will have jumped the shark when TDA gets involved). I don't follow the noticeboards close enough to keep up with all the stuff and there is so much undertow I'm not aware of. Suffice to say, those disputes go back years so when I saw a problematic edit, it appears that the history of the other editors was long and gory (and headed for more of the same). --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You and I both know that those here advocating strong beliefs and opinions, even if they are right, have to meet the judges sooner or later. If he persist in trying to seek sanction against you for flimsy reasons then either an interaction ban or an Rfc may be in order.--MONGO 16:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Olive Branch of Peace

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

Thanks! My issue isn't even with you, rather the users that will cite that Tban for talk page links in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Final Warning

Your latest comment at AN, now removed, violated policy in several ways. By linking to a place containing libelous claims, you violated WP:LIBEL "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" as well as WP:ELNO "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". By linking to an archive that violates copyright, you violated WP:ELNEVER "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." Archive.today does not request permission to archive pages, and since the University scrubbed it there is reason to believe they did not want it published and archived. By editing another user's comment, you violated WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request" and WP:CIVIL for obvious reasons.

At this point, I'm not sure if you're unaware of these policies and guidelines, or just disrupting to prove a point, but it needs to stop. This is your one and only warning before I issue a sanction to prevent further disruption. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? My link says "file not found". Nothing I posted was libel and you can retract that accusation. Is there a two link dereference violation you've invented. I self-reverted the "citation needed" where he (and you) made unfounded claims about Amhersts retraction. That was my only change to his text. He removed my entire comment because I put CN on his claim. Please familiarize yourself with the diff function. If you think links within citations are also issues, you are venturing into ridiculousness. I am not aware that Amherst has copyrighted that material as it's not available at Amherst. In addition you are involved. You don't understand policy enough to be handing out sanctions. Don't post here again with nonsense. I will post it all at ArbCom anyway. Have a nice day. --DHeyward (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice that WP:ELNEVER explicitly says "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright", and you deliberately gave other users directions to find the material. The warning stands; do not link to that content again. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And here is the Amherst retraction, indicating that it contained unsubstantiated, incorrect, and damaging claims and was retracted by the author and editorial board. Proof enough for you to stop your crusade? Also, I am not involved. As per WP:INVOLVED, "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First retraction. That's a start. They don't claim it's defamatory or libelous or false only unsubstantiated and out of date, which I agree (but you went further than that, again without proof and defaming the article author without a source). The retraction also repeated the claim and didn't denounce it as false or list what they thought was false. Second, you just linked to an image that DD2K uploaded with claims he is the copyright holder. You know that is false and he holds no copyright to that image. You're kidding with wikilawyer warnings right? I don't mind any of the information you brought and don't plan on complaining about the image that repeats the claims you believe are defamatory. Nor will I complain about the image you linked to bearing a false copyright claim. because it's part of DISCUSSION which you seem to think only applies to you. Sorry if you think my example (which didn't link to the article and contained no statements) was a violation (It wasn't). Nor was my calling you and others out for accusing the author of committing a crime with no source. I will be providing evidence of your administrative violations to ArbCom. Yes, if you have any sense, you are "involved". --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right on one thing: The image is incorrectly listed as an own work, and lacks an acceptable license. After taking a few minutes to think on it, it appears to be a copyvio and I will speedily delete it as such. Provide whatever you like to Arbcom, I have participated only in an administrative capacity and, like WP:ARBCC, remain uninvolved. And I'm sorry if you think i'm being excessive (I am perhaps heavy-handed in contentious areas), but I also make every attempt to be fair. I specifically recall dismissing a previous sanction request made against you because there was no evidence of violations. I'm sure you're a reasonable person, and we can still collaborate to make this topic area productive instead of toxic. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I am reasonable and I hate sanctions (the only reason I took it to AN was because you seemed to not have responded on GG sanction). I am concerned about the "chilling effect". I don't know Avono and he could have been disruptive before that and a TBan for throwing gas on the fire might have been okay. But a link to illustrate a point that was not related to the narrative about Quinn (i.e. fringe coverage) is necessary for discussion. My own view is that the image that was uploaded for discussion is okay (it would get deleted as an orphan or remain unreferenced). That had the effect of letting me see the retraction which I could not do and is important for both it's existence and wording (no, the retraction is not a reliable source for how to reference quinn's relationships). I think the spirit and compromise of WP:BLPTALK is sometimes links and pictures are needed for discussion. All the false information about Quinn is 2 clicks from Wikipedia anyway. All our sources eventually lead back to claims we don't publish. We provide a source that says it's false but that source has a link to the claim that it's true. Had Avono posted that link with the intention of rewriting Quinn's relationship, that would be the kind of "chilling effect" we'd want to see. But his link was posted to counter that the news coverage was narrow. At AN I pointed out the difference in the names of the link to Amherst with the link to Daily Dot (which is a source in the article). If Avono was problematic, simply restating the TBan as disruptive would have passed my own test. But just a link on a talk page that was relevant to the discussion, though not as a source, shouldn't be chilling. Just as the image upload served a discussion purpose even if the copyright claim would never stand up in an article. The problem will get handled adminstratively without a sanction and the purpose of the encyclopedia is preserved. Everyone understands why it was uploaded and no one looks to punish the uploader. I'm sorry if I was short and snippy. That's not my intent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you or discussing this calmly. I actually hope it DOES have something of a chilling effect, since if you look at the GG talk page archives there is some appalling stuff there. There's even more horrible stuff discussed and linked to in the deleted/suppressed edits. I'm sure there's Oversighted stuff too that even I can't see. If editors have to think twice about what they post for fear of sanction, then maybe there will be less disruption, less frivolous enforcement requests (like the one you were subject to) and more productive conversation. There's a reason I've started participating in discussion of sources on the talkpage, giving a statement about what policy says about a source. I want people to know the policies and apply them on their own, and then the area will be much less contentious. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think most of oversight and revdel involves claims made on WP of which were awful. I couldn't even see us repeating that retraction on WP as being extraordinarily weak. For links, oversight is limited to outing and personal information. I only know this because someone linked to an offsite message board that said stuff about me that was false that they used it to imply wrongdoing on WP. I requested oversight to remove the links that merely contain defamatory material and they are not oversighted by policy. It wasn't revdel'd because they explained that since it wasn't article space, and the attack wasn't direct, but through a link, the WP admins reviewing it would see it was an unreliable source and discount the accusation. They didn't want to upset the discussion unless the charges were on-wiki or doxxing. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just so I am clear on my position here, and I also want to state that I understand your position too. It is my understanding that editors involved in the GG issues were told repeatedly to not post links that make a specific accusation concerning Quinn(we know which one/s), and other editors were sanctioned for posting the accusations and for posting the links on the article Talk page. Avono was well aware of this. But taking his explanation at face value and assuming good faith, he was asked to make sure it doesn't happen again and the TBan would be lifted. Avono refused and stated he was done with the whole GG issue. I would support a lifting of the TBan under the conditions set by the sanctioning admin, and I do understand that we can go too far getting sanctioned for posting links. But I think if we take our blinders off, this specific instance is one were we should be careful and not allow links that make the accusations as facts that we know are unsubstantiated. In any case, thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of SPA's making statements. I don't keep up with Gamergate article talk page except the recent case where NBSB asked me to take a specific issue with his arbcom statement to gamerGate talk as he believed it had at least some merit deserving discussion. The only background I have seen with Avono is what was presented at the sanction page. Previous history I don't think was presented. I presumed it was based on that one link. If there is disruptive history with Avono, I am not aware of it. i haven't searched for it either, though. --DHeyward (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Sorry that I misunderstood your comments on the workshop page. PhilKnight (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Instrument of Degradation

The article Instrument of Degradation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article creator removed db-nocontent tag in violation of WP:CSD instead of contesting deletion. Minimal information remains in this article, and the only article linked here is Order of the Garter. WP:NOT#DICT

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. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Flying droplets

Hi, just dropped back to have a look at the Siphon article. There has been some material (and a video) put in about the 'flying droplet siphon'. The intent is to apparently refute cohesion or tension and subtly re-introduce air pressure. However, I am not concerned about that issue. I have never seen a flying droplet siphon before and my question to you is, basically, is this a siphon?

I think it is being called a siphon inasmuch as a liquid is being moved from one level to another, but I see it as a pump. Just as what is called 'siphon coffee' is a pump because expansion of air under heat pushes liquid up the tube, I see a negative, or partial pressure, pump operation in the droplet siphon. From the decription it seems that when the lower column of fluid is released, it drops under gravity causing a reduced pressure in the sealed chamber above. This reduced pressure, in turn, sucks the fluid from the source container (see Figure 5 in the siphon article) like liquid through a straw. Am I right?

The droplets merely occur because the source tube tapers to a point so the liquid forms droplets at the partial pressure it is emerging from, reduce the pressure and it would hose out as a stream. Remove the taper and just have a circular pipe ending and the fluid would probably just pour out.

I'm not sure that having the flying droplet siphon is strictly a 'siphon' or that it adds to the explanation of siphon operation (in my mind gravity and in-siphon pressure effects (Bern. and Pous. equations)), in fact it may detract from clarity.

I would be happy to read your thoughts on this. Cheers, T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermory Womble (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

gg

Why did you restore it when it was already restored on the workshop page?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I only saw your deletion on the talk page. Apologies if it was restored by another party. The OP only had the single contribution which was inexplicably removed from a talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Instrument of Degradation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Instrument of Degradation. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Order of the Garter#Degradation of members. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Order of the Garter#Degradation of members – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Instrument of Degradation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Instrument of Degradation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instrument of Degradation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)