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 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 rr 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 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 today at 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