User Talk: Ajheindel

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(30d)
| archive=User talk:Ajheindel/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=200K
| archiveheader={{Archive}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}

Why do you continue to edit out content of tech industry men who have harmed women, including Jeffrey Epstein?

Noting this editor continues to remove content about tech leaders men who have a well-documented history of discriminating against and otherwise harming women ~2026-21446-99 ↗ (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC). This includes men who have an association with Jeffrey Epstein, including men like Dan Ariely ↗.

:I see you have already been banned, but if it wasn't clear yet, adding information to WP:BLP ↗ articles requires WP:RS ↗, if you add content without a source then it is WP:OR ↗, these are policies on Wikipedia. Ajheindel (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
::I was temporarily banned because of your triggering a ban, but that ban was quickly lifted. ~2026-21446-99 ↗ (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Women, sexual misconduct, and bias

I'm still learnings the conventions of Wikipedia, so excuse me if this isn't the appropriate place to post this. That said, I want to share the feedback I left on Don Norman's article in response to Ajheindel's blocking and reversing of my edits from of the profiles of men in UX who have been widely criticized for their misconduct against women and black people. Documenting as a safeguard to prevent any future patterns of such behavior emerging. This editor has repeatedly tried to ban me, despite my citing highly credible sources including academic research and articles published in notable publication such as Fast Company. When he's unsuccessful, he appears to recruit others to further push through his agenda.

Here's what I wrote on Don Norman's article:

"The 2022 University of Michigan article about Don Norman by Jaci Wilkinson would have gone through multiple levels of academic review and approval, as scholarly publications do. Since publication, it has been downloaded hundreds of times and viewed more than 21,000 times.

Similarly, the 2023 Fast Company article about Don Norman, “The Problem With Don Norman,” was written by award-winning global design writer and editor Mark Wilson. The article captures critical comments from several notable people within the UX and product development community including Bill Verplank, Luiza Prado, Carrie Sawyer, and Vivianne Castillo. In an era where defamation claims are taken seriously, the fact that the article remains published years later is itself is a sign of its credibility.

As a survivor, I’ve experienced firsthand how quickly people who speak out are labeled “uncredible” or “unhinged;” especially women and double especially black women. When well-established, credible sources discussing misconduct are repeatedly edited out of public narratives, it compounds this gaslighting dynamic that reinforces women being silenced and harmed, allowing misconduct to fester. Again, I respectfully ask that you and other [I'm assuming male editors] stop removing sourced material related to documented criticisms from credible sources surrounding Norman from his narrative. More broadly, this pattern appears connected to the protection and mythologizing of influential UX male thought leaders, including figures like Don Norman, Eric Reiss, and Dan Ariely, who has been widely criticized for his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

I recognize I may not always express these concerns perfectly, particularly given my experiences as a woman in tech and someone living with CPTSD related in part to sexual misconduct I experienced while working in the industry. But the swift removal of my edits, I believe, helps illustrate how misconduct against women in professional settings is so often followed by protection of perpetrators while women harmed are left in a perpetual state of being triggered and fearful of speaking out publicly. ~2026-21446-99 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-21446-99 (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-21446-99 ↗ (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)"

:I looked back at the edit I reverted and the issue was that you did not properly cite the claims you made. In the text above you wrote "the Universiry of Michigan article" and "the Fast Company article", but this does not count as sourcing a claim. You need to directly link the reliable source ↗ (or cite it properly if it is a published source) to prove the article exists and give readers the ability to verify the claims you make. I encourage you to look around Wikipedia and you will find most claims cited in this way.
:Your edits will continue to be reverted unless you comply with Wikipedia sourcing policies. The claims you are making could be seen as defamatory and since these are WP:BLP ↗ articles, special care needs to be taken. Imagine if the claims you are making are false, then there is a chance that millions of people could read something that harms their reputation even though it is conpletely false. If what you said is true, then adding proper sourcing will solve any issues you are having. From what I have seen, there has been no discrimination, just editors upholding the guidelines of Wikipedia. Ajheindel (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 100 Meters (manga) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article 100 Meters (manga) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:100 Meters (manga)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Veyhola -- Veyhola (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive notice

Hi there! Thanks for signing up for the June 2026 GAN backlog drive ↗! We have noticed that you have made little to no reviews during the drive. We, the coordinators, would appreciate if you'd pick up at least one GAN to review until the end of the month! Thank you. Vacant0 (talk • contribs ↗) 12:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)