`  ====• 's bizarre behavior==== Pot, kettle. What, do you get off on acting like a cop around here or something? If you don't have a problem with my edits, don't concern yourself with matters that don't involve you.    :Funny  that's exactly what I would say to you  since this is my talk page we're discussing. |   ::The tone of your responses, which makes evident a presumption of bad faith, is unwarranted, and especially unbecoming of someone who is supposed to be a ``mediator.`` FYI, I dealt with User:Sparky in the same fashion as other users working on the Reagan article. It might have been misguided, but I did have a reason for dealing with Sparky the way I did. Before I got involved in this dispute, I noticed that User:Jiang had removed the rape section, writing ``Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer.`` He too left no comment on the talk page after removing it. So, combined with the nature of the material in question, and what seemed to be unanimous opposition to his work from other editors chiming in on the subject, this led me to conclude that this issue would be widely recognized as a vandalism matter, and thus an appropriate situation for automatic reversion. Perhaps I made the wrong calculation, but I was acting to prevent what arguably appeared to be vandalism at the time.    :::Your agression, accusations, and self-righteousness are the issue that I'm concerned about, and my feeling is that your behavior  not the content you propose to add or delete  is a problem.  :::And as far as my bad faith? You said just above, ``...mudslinging...pointing fingers...digging up dirt on each other...You gave your opinion...tabloid garbage`` and then ``Pot, kettle. What, do you get off on acting like a cop around here or something? If you don't have a problem with my edits, don't concern yourself with matters that don't involve you.`` I rest my case, to quote Perry Mason.  :::So that's all I have to say. I have grown weary of this discussion and my attention will no longer be focused on it. Cheers, |  ::::I posted my last message hoping that you'd be able to see where I was coming from, so that we could start dealing with each other on a cooperative basis. Instead, you responded with your most vehement personal attack yet. Still, I'm ready to start off with a clean slate with you if you are willing to do the same with me.    ===• What are the rules? . . . ===  What are the rules? (Where are the rules?) Who can post? How many editors are there? What is the mediation committee? Why allow someone to edit a page, if they are not logged in? (As I wasn't re: Chiasmus, etc.)  More specifically, why not allow chiasmus examples on the chiasmus page?  Thanks...  :Hi Vanatter  I've left a number of useful links to info about policies and rules on  but you didn't do anything ``wrong``, and we welcome your edits, whether logged in or not, but we also do ``cleanup`` on articles. If you have some something (relatively brief) that you have analyzed and that you want to add to Chiasmus as an example, that would be great, but we generally frown upon people adding links to their web sites to articles as it seems too close to advertising.  :I hope this helps clarify things and that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. And for more info on the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.  :Thanks, | `