`|Law Lord]]    ==Discussion== I prefer to act transparently. Can I give my views on that determination here?    : I sent you an email message asking for your opinion. I think that is pretty transparent.    :: That is fine with me, but some editors don't like it. It was a neutral invitation to a discussion, but it would be more open on a talk page - I did have the wikibreak sign up though. Thanks for the message though, I didn't notice the discussion start.    ::: I wrote it in an email message when possible because those kinds of notification are not worth writing on user talk pages – since there is nothing to talk about. However, in two cases the users' had no email listed and in those cases I did write it on their talk page. See  and . I did not know that policy you linked to. Thanks for that.    ::::That is a good point, no reply is necessary. By the way, it is not a policy, rather a 'behavioural guideline' - I hope it is helpful. Regards,     ==Vandalism of my userpage== Thanks for undoing that, though I admit the edit did amuse me. The guy was blocked 6 months ago for the exact same thing... some people really hold grudges.     ==Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly== I wonder if you could spare a moment to review this article, please. Thank you,     == That is nice ==  It reamins clear that there is historical debate as to whether he actually did ``fuck men``. So it can't so in the category until that histrocial debate is settled. And if you follow the link that I gave you will see that set out in black on white.     == hi ==  do you now how i can get ahold of allison?   never mind.    == Section Head Dispute  (moved from Talk:James I of England) ==  *Lets not argue about and revert each other's section breaks, please.  And it looks like you both just violated WP:3RR. This is just not important compared to the content, and may get this article protected or something else. We all had enough contentious editing in the past. Lets continue a civil debate and, who knows, maybe even come to consensus.  Stranger things have happened. Thank you. —     :I agree. Though, for the record, I ``only`` undid the insertion of a section break above my post 3 times, no more. I am not sure how to further this discussion though. To me it seems the consensus is that James I quite obliviously was a person in the LGBT group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    ::No, for the record, you removed Section Break 6 today at 19:59 and then left your comment. Section breaks are for easy navigation on talk pages that have very long discussions such as this one. I spent my time cleaning up this talk page and breaking it down into section breaks over the last few days and you come along and muck it up just because you don't like where the section break is???? When I first placed it today, it was immediate following the last comment made by Lobojo. See if for yourself here. You came next and removed it and then inserted your comment after Lobojo's comment where the section break was.     :::I disagree with your fiction. Since I have already addressed your actions on your , perhaps it would suit you in the spirit of Wikipedia to confine yourself to that page if you need to further comment on this matter. Since I have stated the facts on your user page regarding your disruptive behavior, no further comment would contribute with relevant content. Also, your comments such as ``you've got more issues than just not understanding what a section break is``  could – by civilized members of this community – be seen as personal attacks committed by you.    ::::As could your own comment, ``If your only contribution is inserting empty section breaks like here, you should not contribute at all.``, which you left on my talk page. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back. Follow your own advice and confine yourself to that page as well.     :Fine, move this thread with all the comments relating to section breaks to your talk page. Then blank them from here, including this one.  However, in fairness to ALLSTAR, he was adding section heads to make it easier to navigate. I'm not going to get into the middle of what happened specifically with the last section head, but I'm AGF.  Is that OK with both of you. —     ::Assuming good faith towards a person attacking you with the libelous charge of ``having issues`` could prove difficult. As such, I have told the perpetrator that I will cease from further words with him. You may move the posts to my own talk page if you so wish. Thanks.    :::Dillusional. After you attacked me first maybe? Assume good faith my eye. As for removing all of this garbage, anyone else is free to do so so I don't get accused of removing some user's comments...     OK, I'm going to move this whole section to  and blank it from here as not contributing to the discussion.  —     == Restoring section breaks (copied from User talk:Allstarecho) ==  Please do not abuse the word ``restoring``, when you are in fact putting in a section break in a random please. The original section break  was in an entirely different please than where you put a new section break.  When you call something ``restoring`` when it is clearly not such, people could construe that as vandalism. Thanks.    :It was restoring because you removed it.     You were not restoring anything but rather placing a section break in a new place of your choosing. If you want a section break then place a break next time when (if) you feel the need to participate with a post to the talk page.    :I am the one that started the section breaks on that page, from the first one to the last one. So don't tell me what I did and didn't do when I know what I did. I placed Section Break VI there today at 18:53 and you have removed it every time. You removed it at 19:59 and made a comment. I RESTORED it at 21:58. You removed it again at 23:47 and 00:14 and Jan. 5 at 00:26.  [[User:Allstarecho|