"==A censored discussion== 
 [A discussion started at , retracted by myself, reinstated by LW, but, true to form, deleted by LW when it started to expose too much about his bad habits. I'm giving it yet another renaissance here so as to allow myself the ability to respond, but also to keep it in the light of day; his self-percieved infallability is just too gobsmackingly funny to be cast away like that! G2] 

 Is there any particular reason why you choose to ignore the first step of the dispute resolution process? You might want to note that ""talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it.""    
     
 :Your question is based on false assumptions that I ""...choose to ignore...."" and ""...[fail] to pursue..."", and is basically and accusation of bad faith. Viper-tongued messages of that sort are rude, unhelpful to the WP project, and unwelcome here. No more of them from you, please. We can discuss the editorial issue that has prompted your verbal attack on the talkpage of the article concerned.       

 ::Well, it's odd that you restore a message that I myself removed only to then complain about it. But, now that you have, I suppose it's only fair, and necessary, that I respond and say: you're right, perhaps you don't choose to ignore the first step of the dispute resolution process; maybe you just don't know about it. But, given the length of your experience here, I'd find that hard to believe. Regardless, there is indeed a dearth of contributions to talk pages on your part when it comes to disputes between you and I, especially; it's one of the main characteristics of your editing tactics that has always been most aggravating, and, as WP:DR#Discuss points out, makes good grounds for perceiving ill motive. If it is not your intent to provoke me into edit wars, then constructively and cooperatively participating in an open discussion would go a long way to proving that.       
     
 :::Not really so odd, given that you'd posted the message and I'd written an answer. Next time, don't post the noxious message to begin with.Your impressions of me and my ""tactics""  your very choice of that word starkly shows your wrongheadedness  are basically out to lunch, and verge on paranoid. You are gravely mistaken, but if you won't take my word for that then believe what you like and keep it to yourself.    
 ::::Er, no, I posted the message and then deleted it before you placed your response. If you didn't want any ""noxious"" commentary, why put it back? Like I said: odd. 
 ::::As I also said, if I'm mistaken about your motives, prove me to be so; but do it through improving your attitude and, yes, tactics. Making over-dramatic feigns of insult and injury to your precious, self-imagined flawlessness certainly won't win anyone over.    

 :::::Yes, yes, yes, you posted a noxious message on my talkpage and then you removed it while I, as it happened, was writing an answer, and then I decided to post the answer anyway, having troubled to write it and because you had ""said"" what you said to me, despite that you afterward erased it.  I suggest that in the future you think more carefully before you post  perhaps especially when addressing another editor on their own talkpage.Your ongoing personal invective against me does not bother me insofar as that I doubt anyone but you finds it convincing.  It would nevertheless be better if you knocked it off, so please do.    
 ::::::No need to think any more carefully than I do; I only removed the comment at your talk because I saw you had replied at Talk:Expo 67 in the meantime; hence I said in my edit summary that I was going to place the comments elsewhere, and did. 
 ::::::That said, there's no intention to ""bother you"" on my part; in fact, I'd love to see the back of you as soon as possible. My only desire is the bringing about of an end to your consistent log-jamming of the editing process. I can't help it if this means exposing your poor behaviours, and I certainly won't quit because you tell me to.   (U