Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:51, 6 March 2012

• /Archive1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive3 Created September 30, 2006
• /Archive4 Created November 19, 2006
• ] 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)

Please add comments to the bottom.

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)

John's comments regarding MF

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

• • 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)

• • • In what way is "subpar forever" an instance of him "push 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)

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)

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)