User talk:DHeyward/Archive 11

Good to see you're editing agin
Pleased to see you're editing some again...I haven't forgotten all the times you went to bat for me...I owe you! I hope you can find the time to keep things sane on the website..it is sorely needed.--MONGO 02:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well put
I thought your comment on the Santorum arb case was particularly well put and well thought out. Just impressed that you've looked at the issues so insightfully. -- Avanu (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, (although I fear someone may complain about the 500 word limit). — Ched : ?  08:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed that's precisely what "someone" will do -- it's more than twice as long as it should be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to War-ipedia
Heh...succinctly put...it is what it is. The article is simply too broad already. You just missed my warzone over at AN/I...I managed to keep the thing opened for over 2 hours till they shut it down.--MONGO 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not do that
The discussion is closed. It was hatted. You're a very experienced editor, and know that any further discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Please reinstate the closure of that thread. Risker (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see another admin has protected the page. But putting additional comments onto the talk page of the GA review is every bit as inappropriate. You know where the article talk page is, and that is where your comments should be now that the review is closed - as you have pointed out on this very page to another editor. Risker (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DHeyward...I had no doubt that the GAR would close and the article would be delisted....I think the 10th anniversary heightened everyones interest in the article...and sadly, too many just don't understand the issues. Most of the opposition to the articles current wording are editors, not researchers, and don't seem to understand the policies of this website...--MONGO 10:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good show!
I'm usually reluctant to make a opening complaint at the noticeboards since someone seems to close them before a full range of editors have a chance to chime in...perhaps it takes someone such as yourself, always making wise and fair arguments, to get the sane to support a motion or to do what is rarely done...namely override an AE action. Outstanding job and thanks for being brave enough to start the ball rolling to fix a great wrong...justice has been served...though the foul taste of the injustice lingers...and something needs to be done with the way things are handled to try and prevent such massive over reaching again.MONGO 11:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For you!
Feel the love. Tom Harrison Talk 13:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

911 vs Police Non-emergency phone
For the purposes of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page isn't that a distinction without a difference essentially? If not, could you explain? I'm all for factual accuracy. 911 is just so darned convenient... If you have the time and inclination please respond to my talk page. Cheers! ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the clarification. You convinced me. ArishiaNishi (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent comment in the AE
Noticed this edit. Since it's close to a personal attack, it might be better if you remove it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I refactored with strikethrough and apology in edit summary.  As I understand it, it's bad form to remove comments on noticeboards with strikethrough being preferred..  I have no problem deleting them completely if that would be more appropriate in your opinion.  --DHeyward (talk)

WP:ARB911 Log
I reverted your note on the 9/11 block log. I don't really see how it applies and I don't really see the need to annotate a 4 year old matter. If you want to explain a bit more what you're looking to accomplish maybe I can comment in more detail. --WGFinley (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was from a conversation on EdJohnston's talk page.  It's explained there but I don't have a strong feeling or concern either way.  I figured I'd be BOLD and it wouldn't hurt but if someone objected, it's fine too.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Santorum
Good solution. Thanks. Von Restorff (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

New essay/rant
Please take a look at User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Scare quotes
You said I used scare quotes, but my attempt was to quote the source. You could have removed the quotes if these offended you, but why removing factual information? Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Understanding carboncycle.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Understanding carboncycle.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)