`The current status of what we have posted to each other (can't really call it a conversation, IMO) at my talk:  ==Talk:Quackwatch== I really appreciate what you're trying to do with comments such as this .  You're trying to calm the situation, that's clear. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch is a controversial article with often heated discussions.  It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not.     :I hope you'll consider refactoring per above: .    ::Should we seek a third-party to help?  I'm disappointed by the edits you made to User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad, after I made the comment above.  It appears you're no longer discussing the issues with me per WP:DR.     ::: again, if you cite specifics, I can address them. Overbroad generalizations are too easy to brush off as insinuations which of course is not what you intend. However, the edits that disappoint you are in my userspace, not in an article. Please feel free to point out a specific thing that violates a specific policy. Also, feel free to bring in more people, although I wonder at the term ``third`` party, as there seem to be more than three already. And no, I don't mean to ignore you, but ScienceApologist is posting much faster, and more conspicuously, e.g. at the ANI he brought, which you may wish to follow. So lacking specifics to address, I'm busier elsewhere. And yeah, I'll copy this to your talk.     `