• /Archive1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive3 Created September 30, 2006
• /Archive4 Created November 19, 2006
• [[1]] Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive10 Created --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add comments to the bottom.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, (although I fear someone may complain about the 500 word limit). — Ched :  ?  08:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Did you really think that this was helpful? --John (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • More helpful than "subpar forever" because it didn't push fringe group POV. I'm hoping the comment gave him some perspective that collaborative editing doesn't mean he always gets his way or article quality is in any way tied to one editors desire. What were you hoping to accomplish by extending this debate? --DHeyward (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • In what way is "subpar forever" an instance of him "push[ing] fringe group POV"? Have you read the GAR? Do you really think it is only one editor who thinks the article has some serious holes? I was hoping to engender some "collaborative editing" because, to me, your comment really wasn't a good example of that. In order to improve the article beyond its current state we will all have to work together and listen to each other. Are you capable of that? --John (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already heard it. General consensus is "no" after hearing years of arguments. It doesn't change. Those that can't edit within that framework should stop trying to edit those articles. This conversation on my talk page is over, BTW. Please take it to the article talk page where I may or may participate. Fair warning that I will consider a reply here to be possible trolling and will simply revert it. --DHeyward (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	Strategic vision award
	For spotting the high ground. Tom Harrison Talk 11:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the love. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarification. You convinced me. ArishiaNishi (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

derpo derp derp --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...that's silly.MONGO 17:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You put out a request for peer review, tag it as conservative and then get upset when people edit it? Begone troll. --DHeyward (talk)

I have started an AE case concerning you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]