"|Law Lord]]  

Discussion
I prefer to act transparently. Can I give my views on that determination here?  insignis 
 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.  insignis 
 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 User_talk:Sarsaparilla#Review_of_deletion_of_page_User:Prester_John and User_talk:Christopher_Mann_McKay#User:Prester_John. 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,  insignis 

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  (talk • contribs)  
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.  [[User talk:Allstarecho|